The ulster rugby trial

[David McKeown]

Act

Recklessness isn't an issue. The jury will be told they can only convict if they are satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendants did not reasonably believe the injured party was not consenting.

OK - though I'm struggling with your explanation (my fault, not yours).   
If I interpret your wording in my own words, the jury can only find guilty if they reasonably believe that Jackson and Olding didn't think she was not saying yes.  That makes no sense to me - sorry!  Is there another less legal way of explaining it?

Reckless is a legal issue and relates to this case. What you wrote Rois was pertinent.
An accused person could be judged reckless in being somewhat aware that the woman was not complaint, but carried on regardless. A legal standard of consent is that the accused genuinely believed he had consent from the woman. The jury might be asked that (about the accuseds'  belief being genuine)  from the Judge in this case.
We already know that merely having a belief that a woman was consenting is not a legal defence

That's wrong. It is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable.

It's not wrong. my wording is very accurate.
Merely having a belief that consent was given is not a defence, it has to be deemed a reasonable belief that consent was given,  in order to be regarded as a genuine defence.
There is a huge difference between a defendant having a belief it was consensual  and a defendant whose belief is deemed reasonable. It is the difference between still being an accused defending a charge to one who has been proven innocent.

The legal concept of recklessness is not relevant in a rape case in Northern Ireland.

The word reckless was in the UK sexual offences act, but dropped out in 2003 for a wider criteria

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The offence of rape in Northern Ireland can not be committed recklessly. In other jurisdictions it can. The legal concept of recklessness is therefore irrelevant to this case. You can be reckless as to consent and it still not be rape. For example if you believe but are not 100% sure you have consent but you carry on regardless. That would be legally reckless but unless your believe was not reasonable you would not be guilty of rape.

As for your other point. Belief that consent was given is a defence provided such a belief is not unreasonable. The defendant does not need to prove their belief was reasonable even on the balance of probabilities, the prosecution must prove that the defendants did not have a reasonable belief. In the same way is a defence to say there was no penetration. You don't need to prove there was no penetration the prosecution must prove to the requisite standard that there was penetration.

[seafoid]

When did the bleeding start? Was she bleeding by the time Harrison ordered the taxi?

Or did she just start bleeding because she felt like it? It seems out of line with the evidence of the defendants.

"*Olding said: "I didn't penetrate her vagina with my penis at any point" and he told detectives he did not see Jackson penetrate the woman.

--------

When asked how he felt about this, McIlroy answered: "I thought she just had regrets." He added: "She seemed fine. She wasn't upset. She said, 'Oh my God, this isn't like me' but she wasn't upset or crying about it."

The jury also heard how McIlroy told officers the complainant had tried to kiss him earlier in the evening, but that he had not been interested because he was talking to another woman at the party in Jackson's south Belfast home.

In the course of his interview, McIlroy said he had felt "shocked" when Harrison called to tell him Jackson and Olding had been taken in for questioning."

[Taylor]

After the first few weeks I was swaying towards innocent given the perceived holes/inconsistencies/uncertainties in the IP story and teh evidence of speacialists etc.

After the boys evidence Im not so sure now.

The beyond all doubt is the key here as someone has said.

They may well be guilty but are they guilty beyond all doubt? There are still doubts in my mind given my limited knowledge of the case.

All of the lives have been ravaged by this case irrespective of the outcome and in reality when there verdict is read out there are no real winners.

The woman is a fûcking hero if she helps convict two rapists.

She's a winner in my eyes either way for having the balls to bring this to trial irrespective of the verdict. Far too many women are cowed into silence after experiences like this.

After what experience?

She has said she was raped. The boys have said she wasnt.

Question (which I doubt you will answer).....if you slept with a woman and you believed all was fair, she said you raped her and you were found innocent - would you say she was a hero?

You were asked a very simple yes or no question Syf... any word of an answer??

Syf couldn't dignify that question with a reply.
That's a straw mans argument from Taylor, even Syf could spot that one from a km away.
You Nordies must do better.
Never mind visualising Syf sleeping with a woman.

Ah the old strawman shite that people come out with when they wont answer a question 

Looks like Syf & yerself missed a few days while completing the law degree given you have both been caught out talking shite/making up laws/rules 

[screenexile]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

[Milltown Row2]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

[screenexile]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Not sure but the investigating officer seems to have been annihilated up there!!

[AQMP]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Yeah, the PSNI not coming out of this too well.  Was it ever thus?

[AQMP]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

[Syferus]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Same place he heard there was a video doing the rounds. For a man bleating about evidence he sure has a lacklustre vetting process of his own.

[Milltown Row2]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Few pages ago, someone had it up, but I also heard it from a rugby source who knows a couple of the lads from development squads he worked in.. Now to be fair to the rugby guy he thinks there was some wrong doing here

[Milltown Row2]

Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

See above

[Milltown Row2]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Same place he heard there was a video doing the rounds. For a man bleating about evidence he sure has a lacklustre vetting process of his own.

Evidence? while you are on the topic of evidence could i see some evidence of your legal background please? Youve been shown up a few times but shy away for a while, then there was another muppet shown up for his post saying he knew it all but again when challenged he went missing, must be the weather

[haranguerer]

So Olding was originally charged with vaginal rape and then this was dropped??

Why would this type of thing happen? Defence are destroying the police investigation over the past few days from what it seems.

Was it not the case that the PPS didnt want to take on the case?

Where did you hear that MR2??

Few pages ago, someone had it up, but I also heard it from a rugby source who knows a couple of the lads from development squads he worked in.. Now to be fair to the rugby guy he thinks there was some wrong doing here

That is the case - it was decided not to proceed due to medical evidence.

Also I see the conclusions jumped to re the clothing have been shown to be rubbish - it would serve people to do well to read what is reported - not being seized by the police doesn't mean they couldn't find it

[AQMP]

Quick question, would the PPS have taken this case to court if it wasn't for the high profiles of the accused? Just asking because it seems that way.

PPs originally decided not to run the case.

Family instructed Counsel to challenge this and he convinced PPS to throw it before a jury and see what would happen as opposed to presume what would happen. He is on a fair wedge for this

See above

Really??  I find that difficult to believe - even in NI.  Has this been reported??

[AQMP]

From the Belfast Telegraph:

"The jury was also told that McIlroy was a regular visitor to Jackson's home, staying two or three times a week, and usually sharing his "big" bed"