The ulster rugby trial

[Avondhu star]

Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

I thought a jury could not draw inferences but my learned friend seems very correct.

[David McKeown]

I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.

99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?

[AZOffaly]

I think it's the same woman David, because that exchange you mention took place with her, according to her comments to the other friend. I'm paraphrasing, but she said PJ made some comment to her about joining in, and she refused.

[Avondhu star]

I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.

99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?

Is the fourth woman the one who was conked out from drink and who the other two were looking for?

[macdanger2]

Crying or being annoyed in a taxi will not convince me if something bad happened..

Questions missed for taxi driver:  How often do you pick up couples late night or early hours of the morning where one or more of them appears to be upset and or sobbing or soiled their clothing?  What stood out for you on this occasion that was different from your previous experience?

Either by very condensed reporting or weak questioning by barrister, the taxi driver appears to have gone unchallenged in witness box.

Crying in a taxi late at night won't be much use.
I have often seen young girls bawling their eyes out late at night after drinking. There are loads of reasons that could be the cause.
He broke up with me. He danced with some slut, too much gin, he rode me, he didn't ride me.
The fun will start when or if the accused give evidence
Hang together or they'll all hang separately

True but how often does a man accompany a distressed girl, who he doesn't know from Adam, home in a taxi?

If I was at a party and a random girl got upset for no good reason, I'd have no problem calling a taxi for her but no chance I'd be going with her

[Ty4Sam]

I am reluctant to do this as it may be speculation but I think the women referred to by the defence last week as having been in the room is not the woman who has given evidence. I say this for two reasons.

1. What was reported to have been put to the IP is significantly different to the evidence reportedly given by the witness who has given evidence this week. Now that may well be because that witness had given a statement to the police the contents of which formed the basis of what was put to the IP but if that had happened then I would have expected lengthy cross examinations from the defence as to why the evidence differed. Reports have not suggested that occurred.

2. The way it was reported that the evidence was put to the IP made it seem like a defence witness was to be called when in fact we have only had prosecution witnesses so far.

As I say the above is purely on the basis of the coverage I have read of the case and could be wholly inaccurate and not necessarily due to inaccurate reporting simply because of the nuances of a criminal justice system not being fully understood by reporters.

99.9% sure you're not right here. This is the only witness. Reports said there were 4 women in the house, the witness, her 2 friends and the IP.

How do you think her evidence differed from what was expected?

The surprise to me was that the prosecution called her rather than the defense. But maybe that was a tactic on his behalf (knowing the defence would call her anyway), so he'd be able to take the lead.

As I say I am going solely on what I've read of the case (which I know I shouldn't be doing)1111111 and am not suggesting for a second that I was correct but the way I read the initial reports of what was put to the IP was that a woman had physically entered the room, there had been some converasation about her joining in. That woman had then done something to make the IP think the woman was going to film her before the woman then left. The evidence the female witness seemed to give (and again I'm at pains to point out that I am only basing this on the very short reports I read on the case) was that she opened the door, could clearly see what was going on and quickly thereafter shut the door again.

Those are clear discrepancies that would warrant considerable cross examination if not to a lay person certainly to experienced counsel. Therefore I am of the opinion that one of three scenarios has arisen.

1. There is another witness to be called by the defence (which would explain the difference in what was put and what we heard)

2. They are the same woman but there has been a significant change in evidence between what she gave to police (which is what the defence would have put to the IP) and her evidence in the box. Although if this is the case I would have expected very lengthy cross examination.

3. The reports from court are missing something. The more I read the more convinced it's this one and I therefore have no idea if there still is another witness to go.

Also two other things strike me. 1 the prosecution wouldn't be any better able to take the lead. They would only call a witness who can provide credible material evidence. Calling a witness would also open them up to defence cross examination where the same strict rules about not leading witnesses do not apply.   Furthermore by my count and from what I've read (with the usual caveats) there were 4 women in the house. The IP and two of those women have given evidence does that not still leave one women (the one the witnesses we are talking about was said to be looking for)?

I've read a report/transcript that this witness was asked by PJ "if she wanted to join in?", she responded "no" and left the room.

I've no doubt that it is number 3, there is no way a journalist tweeting can cover everything said plus, crucially, they can't give a visual on facial expressions/body language/tone of voice etc. which IMO is very important.

[Esmarelda]

Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

[David McKeown]

I think it's the same woman David, because that exchange you mention took place with her, according to her comments to the other friend. I'm paraphrasing, but she said PJ made some comment to her about joining in, and she refused.

As I say I was going solely on what I had read and didn't see that mentioned anywhere. So i shall stop speculating any further.

[Orchard park]

does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

[macdanger2]

Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?

[macdanger2]

does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

I used to watch Matlock when I was younger

[Orchard park]

does anyone posting here have any legal training whatsoever

I personally don't

I used to watch Matlock when I was younger

more qualified than most here then

[AZOffaly]

I believe we have at least two qualified legal professionals.

I am not one of them

[David McKeown]

Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?

I doubt that because according to the RTE report it was introduced in re-examination the purpose of which is to adduce evidence based on what has arisen during the cross examination. Prosecution can't sit on evidence and then introduce it in re-examination after the witness has been crossed. So I think either that was incorrect reporting or that was introduced by the defence the week previous but for whatever reason wasn't reported.

[macdanger2]

Apologies if this has been said already, but is it the case that the defendants don't have to take the stand.

If the prosecution calls them, can they refuse?

They are not compellable witnesses the prosecution can't call them. Whether they take the stand or not is entirely up to them although a jury can be invited to draw certain inferences if they choose not to take the stand. Interestingly in any multiple defendant case anything said by one co-accused about another (for example in an interview) is not admissible evidence unless that defendant takes the stand.

Ok. It seems odd to me that, on the assumption that they won't take the stand (obviously this is in no way known for certain), that their version of events has been made known when the IP is being cross-examined. Obviously this must be all above board. Just seems unusual to say that it's the defendant's case that he didn't have intercourse yet he doesn't have to take stand.

This story was introduced by the prosecution according to an article on RTÉ, presumably from his statement to police?

I doubt that because according to the RTE report it was introduced in re-examination the purpose of which is to adduce evidence based on what has arisen during the cross examination. Prosecution can't sit on evidence and then introduce it in re-examination after the witness has been crossed. So I think either that was incorrect reporting or that was introduced by the defence the week previous but for whatever reason wasn't reported.

Oh right, fair enough. I was taking it from about halfway down this article:

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0213/940392-belfast-rape-trial/

I guess it goes to show the difficulty of trying to judge any case on necessarily brief news reports