The ulster rugby trial

[screenexile]

I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

[gallsman]

Who claimed he was a rape apologist?

[Dinny Breen]

People should really stop commenting on "Live Cases" based on condensed reporting. You just end up looking stupid. I still by my prejudicial comments.

[Itchy]

I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?

[brokencrossbar1]

'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unsure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

[magpie seanie]

I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

So he is asked to attend the court so he might form an opinion on the character of the accused in case he has to give a statement on it.

Here is the key question - Why would Counsel ask Best and Henderson to attend?

No legitimate reason has been mentioned so no wonder people are speculating. I know what I think.

[magpie seanie]

'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

Well said.

[sid waddell]

I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

How can you hear both sides in one day?

[Syferus]

Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn't see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.

[magpie seanie]

Maybe he meant hear from both sides of his head. The idea the defence lawyers have any interest in their character witness hearing from the victim is so laughable only a very simple person couldn't see the gapping hole that exposes it as a lame excuse.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see....

[Orchard park]

So why didnt Best state this instead of having to wait for the judge to explain it, or why didnt the "directing" SC explain it and save the furore.


has henderson the same justification

[AQMP]

I think the bigger issue here is why did the Judge tell the jury anything.  As far as the law is concerned it's a public court room and would be perfectly entitled to attend the trial without comment from the bench.  I wonder did the jury ask specifically about his attendance.

Because the jury will have read all of the hysteria in social media and in the MSM and will have drawn their own conclusions like we have seen in this thread.

If they did that it would be grounds for discharging the jury I would have thought.  They will have been warned not to watch media coverage or read about this case where possible.  This is why I am surprised.

As for the term "directed by senior counsel" that likely does not mean compelled to attend.  Counsel will issue directions in any case for a wide variety of reasons, if in one of those directions it was stated to have Best attend that would not compel Best to attend. 

Of course it is not clear which senior directed the attendance and again I am surprised that wasn't made clear either

If Best is not obliged to attend, and again presuming it was the defence team who "directed" him, then he chose to go and therefore the questions over his voluntary attendance are legitimate.

He said he's been called as a character witness and was advised he should go to hear both sides . . . should he not hear both sides before he makes up his mind?! Does this suddenly make him a rape apologist?

I wasn't online much over the weekend but this #notmycaptain bullshit is exactly that!!

In that case it will be interesting to see if he attends should Jackson and/or Olding take the stand.  I never said he was a rape apologist.

[Itchy]

'Directed by senior counsel'- in other words this was a tactic by the defence to influence things, no shadow of a doubt about that. Unless Best has no back bone he can make up his own mind what to do. He did not have to attend. He is not giving evidence and had no part of the substantive part of the case. He did not have to attend. He did so of his own volition and could have said to the SC that he was unit sure if he should attend. HE DID NOT HAVE TO ATTEND. As someone whose has worked these types of trials it's all about causing any flicker of doubt in the juries mind. The fact the judge had to comment on it is extraordinary and perhaps was a direct request from the jury. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

Well said.

Exactly. A cynical attempt to influence the jury in a rape trial and the Ireland Rugby captain obliges.

[Milltown Row2]

Jesus, there is more attention on Best and Henderson than there is on the actual case... if this was a move by the defence to draw attention away. then good move, its worked by the looks of things..

As all the muppets are more concerned (at the minute) on what Best did or should have done or not done!!

[Dinny Breen]

How many people on the street in Norn Iron would recognise and know Rory Best, not very many I would garner.

The witness was behind a screen so she wouldn't even know he was there.

Now you're Rory Best, farmer rugby player you are directed to attend your friends trial, it's not an invitation "Dear Rory, you wouldn't been a sport and attend....etc" He has been told to attend a very serious trial, of course he's bloody well going to attend, he can't second guess any SC's motives, he's not a law student or one of us gobshites with too much time on his hands. He was there in good faith I have no doubt whether he was invited in good faith is another debate and when it comes to ethics and the law that debate would break the internet.

Social media is becoming a scourge and is showing no signs of maturity, the amount of abuse Rory Best has received is disgusting. If any person is on this board was directed by an SC to attend their friends trial and your friend had pleaded not guilty, every single person would attend.