The ulster rugby trial

[Over the Bar]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

While I'm sure the vast majority of solicitors are fine fellows indeed those like Mr Loophole and John Terry's racism-charge defence lawyer give the profession a very bad image.   Stone-wall guilt can, for a price, be refracted through a prism of fantasy and presented in such a way to sufficiently blur the lines to make a 'beyond reasonable doubt' conviction unlikely.   

[Milltown Row2]

That's escalated quickly! Corrupt solicitors now!

[bennydorano]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.

I'm amazed you think you know more than Syferus on any subject ever tbh

[Milltown Row2]

Syferus has full on blinkers!

[general_lee]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Get that wee gimp some aloe vera for that burn

[Frank_The_Tank]

I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fúcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fúcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men you'd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and don't make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what it's worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently ignored....as always.

was just going to say the same - ignore function for that guys folks

[Square Ball]

Wtf, did i hear this correctly. Why did she not cry out, there were a lot of middle class girls down stairs who would not tolerate rape. It was something like that, so just middle class girls wont tolorate rape?

[Rois]

Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?

[brokencrossbar1]

Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?

If he did say it there was undoubtedly a tactic played. Frank is a very grounded down to earth man and wouldn't think like that at all.

[Square Ball]

http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/national/16102904.Rape_accused_rugby_star____has_told_the_truth__warts_and_all___/#

Indeed he did, a tad odd

[Orchard park]

Thought the same Square Ball - that can't have been reported right, can it?

"middle class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate rape"

O'Donoghue may be a straight and honorable man, but that's a completely bizzare statement. 
Perhaps it plays to the make-up of the jury?

If he did say it there was undoubtedly a tactic played. Frank is a very grounded down to earth man and wouldn't think like that at all.

Sounds like a prize cnut, grounded or not tactic or not

[yellowcard]

http://www.impartialreporter.com/news/national/16102904.Rape_accused_rugby_star____has_told_the_truth__warts_and_all___/#

Indeed he did, a tad odd

When I read this quote my immediate reaction was, rightly or wrongly, what a pompous individual.

This entire trial undoubtedly involves middle class professionals on all sides but to insinuate that persons lower down the class scale would be less likely to tolerate a rape, is very judgemental at best and I would suggest is not based on fact either. I don't understand why he brought class into the likelihood of them calling rape, maybe in fact it was a tactic as bc states.

[Rois]

If he did say it there was undoubtedly a tactic played. Frank is a very grounded down to earth man and wouldn't think like that at all.

Don't doubt that and agree that there must have been a reason, or the quote taken without context surrounding it, given how strange it sounds on its own. 
Prosecution perhaps focussed on the middle-class rugger buggers who thought they could take what they wanted, with the defence pointing out that there were people of similar background close by who, by virtue of their own upbringing, should/would not have been intimidated by them?  Without reading the full text, we'll never know. 

[Milltown Row2]

If he did say it there was undoubtedly a tactic played. Frank is a very grounded down to earth man and wouldn't think like that at all.

Don't doubt that and agree that there must have been a reason, or the quote taken without context surrounding it, given how strange it sounds on its own. 
Prosecution perhaps focussed on the middle-class rugger buggers who thought they could take what they wanted, with the defence pointing out that there were people of similar background close by who, by virtue of their own upbringing, should/would not have been intimidated by them?  Without reading the full text, we'll never know.

But that won't stop the ones who have convicted them from the start..

[Tony Baloney]

I wonder how many pages we'll get after the judgement as plenty of people will think it's a miscarriage of justice whatever way it goes.

For the legal lads, if the players get off and she waives her right to anonymity to make a few quid in the press, and talks about the case in words that portray the players as guilty regardless of verdict, could the players take her on?