The ulster rugby trial

[Milltown Row2]

Your legal background is? That's twice I've asked you

[screenexile]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?

He quoted the legal definition of rape. So is he lying just like you assume the rape victim is?

Having checked out MS's quote for consent I've seen it on one website and I don't think it in any way is a legal definition of consent! For one it is way too concise!

PS. I'm happy enough to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.

[Milltown Row2]

When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon

[Syferus]

When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon

It's a bit sad that you've been reduced from dressing up obvious predjuices in the clothes of reasoning to distraction tactics. Maybe time to take a break?

[Milltown Row2]

When Syferus gets up his legal experience I'll take that as binding!

Just waiting on it! Should be soon

It's a bit sad that you've been reduced from dressing up obvious predjuices in the clothes of reasoning to distraction tactics. Maybe time to take a break?

So you're not going to give me an answer?

[Orior]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Oh okay, we're allowed to laugh out loud on this thread now?

[Milltown Row2]

Only the chosen one (whose absolutely no legal credentials) can decide what is ok or not

[themac_23]

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.

[smelmoth]

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

[Owen Brannigan]

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

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.

[smelmoth]

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

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.

Can't see there being any convictions for tape/sexual assault.

Probably will be for perverting the course of justice.

A fall out would require public sympathy. The only one likely to have public sympathy by the time this is over will be the one individual found guilty. The whole thing is messed up

[David McKeown]

Rape is no longer a common law offence in Northern Ireland. It is now contained within the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 which defines Rape as:

Rape
5.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The point I was making was that penetration and a lack of consent does not mean it is automatically Rape. Should that be the case? Should the onus be on the perp to establish in advance that consent had been established? Those are arguments not relevant to this trial.

[Asal Mor]

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

If convictions are not achieved by PPS after this trial costing many hundreds of thousands then there will be serious fallout at the PPS on the decision to prosecute.  Convictions or not the lives of 5 young people will be in shreds and their families will have to live with the consequences long after the MSM and social media interest has moved on to the next thing.

Dead right.
If the sexual offences act 2008 that David just quoted is the law that governs this case, then it should never have seen trial. The girl has been unable to specify any verbal or non-verbal indication she gave to the men to show she wasn't consenting until number 3 walked in. At least nothing that's been reported. The only specific detail we've heard from her is the admission that she took her own top off.
It looks almost certain that they will be found not guilty at this stage, from the evidence we've heard.

[trileacman]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

[Asal Mor]

The only evidence many can provide in favour of the prosecutions case is that it's hard for a woman to bring forward a rape case and men are prejudiced against rape victims. Very few of those who believe the prosecutions case care to ponder on the actual  evidence from the trial.

Exactly.