The ulster rugby trial

[Dinny Breen]

Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html

Figures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html

[passedit]

MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion?

I have to admit this comment made my spit my tea out!!

I was referring to the length of time of jury deliberation, which we are being reliably informed means that the jury didn't believe her at all therefore accepted Jackson's defence unreservedly.  I fully understand how the beyond reasonable doubt threshhold may not have been reached.

[magpie seanie]

Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.

[AZOffaly]

Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.

I'm not 'angry' but I don't like being told that because I let the jury tell me whether the men were guilty or not, I am some sort of monster. It's hysterical bullshit.

If the protests were simply about the way the trial was handled, I'd have no issue really.

But some of these protesters don't seem to understand the ROI has a different system....

[magpie seanie]

Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html

Figures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html

FACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

IMPACT: Low reporting leads to a denial of the scale of the problem in our society and rapists continue to get away with their crimes in huge numbers

That impact is chilling.

Whatever the figures, I think we can agree rapes are underreported and when they do make it to court they get convictions at a much lower rate than other crimes.

[David McKeown]

I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal

[David McKeown]

Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html

Figures issued by the DPP show that sexual offences had the lowest conviction rate with 89% of such cases coming before the country's Circuit Criminal Courts in 2014 resulting in a conviction.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sexual-offences-have-lowest-conviction-rates-in-countrys-circuit-courts-414817.html

FACT 6: Rape is not a well reported crime. In the Rape Crisis Network National Statistics 2015, fewer than 32% of survivors reported the sexual violence to the Gardaí. Fear of not being believed, of hurting loved ones (for example, if the rapist is a family member), or fear of the attacker can cause a survivor not to report. Also, many survivors simply try to forget that it ever happened.

IMPACT: Low reporting leads to a denial of the scale of the problem in our society and rapists continue to get away with their crimes in huge numbers

That impact is chilling.

Whatever the figures, I think we can agree rapes are underreported and when they do make it to court they get convictions at a much lower rate than other crimes.

I can certainly agree with the first part of that. The latter I would like some more research done on in the north. For example I know of at least three other rape trials (2 convictions and an acquittal) that have completed during the currency of this trial.

[magpie seanie]

Nobody should be castigated or abused for an opinion. Challenged - absolutely but not ridiculed or demeaned. I'm sure there is plenty of over the top stuff going on but just as David outlined above reasons why people may not believe the alleged victim, there are reasons why people do believe her. Those opinions are just as valid.

I'm not sure why these demos have made some people (mostly men) so angry.

As for the point number 3 David mentioned.....I'm sure we all sincerely hope anyone who compromises the alleged victims anonymity is severely dealt with by the law. Any such "background info" is completely irrelevant and it's a no brainer it's excluded.

I'm not 'angry' but I don't like being told that because I let the jury tell me whether the men were guilty or not, I am some sort of monster. It's hysterical bullshit.

If the protests were simply about the way the trial was handled, I'd have no issue really.

But some of these protesters don't seem to understand the ROI has a different system....

Others above had spoken of "anger". I would say they're correct judging by some social media reaction I've seen and a conversation I overheard in my local pub last evening involving all the (7/8) men around the bar.

If you're being told you're a monster as you describe then that's clearly wrong. It's a reasonable position even if I don't totally agree with it. 

I think the underlying issue of sexual crimes and violence against women are the main reasons for the numbers turning out. The most vocal ones in a situation can often be the most extreme ones. They're unlikely to speak for the general feeling of the crowd. I think it's unwise to categorise the entire group in that way.

[AQMP]

I'm sorry if you disagree with the result but I don't understand how anyone can advocate a system where the IP version of events are not challenged in a court of law. There's a lot of shite that she shouldn't be questioned for so long. Not 3 weeks ago everyone of this guardian reading crowd were celebrating how well she acquitted herself in the witness box. The IP version of events must be scrutinised as closely as the defendants if their is to be any sense of fairness or equality within the law.

There's this bizarre argument out there that seems to suggest that in cases of rape the IP's testimony should be above reproach.

Excellent post trileacman. They are angry that the girl was treated very badly and there's no doubt she was but what specific changes would they like to see to the system? It's terrible that in an accusation of gang rape the accuser gets questioned by several barristers but difficult to see a way round it. Anonymity until the verdict would be a good change but I don't think the protesters would want anything that would make life easier for the accused.

Personally I think any protests should be aimed at the police who were no doubt influenced by the prevailing culture in not questioning the accuser during her police interview. If they had, depending on the answers the girl had given, they could have either dropped the case or proceeded with a genuine case of conviction.

Very few  of these people who are so angry about the case seem to accept that the 100% correct verdict was reached by the jury given the evidence. That's not to say with 100% certainty that the girl wasn't raped.

If these protesters want the law changed so that a man has to be able to prove consent (maybe technology could play a role here- some kind of consent app?)beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be a worthwhile debate and if things did go that way at least it would be clear.

The problem with the protests is that they just seem angry and vindictive and will end up being about ruining the next few years of the accused men's lives.

We haven't always seen eye to eye over this case AM, but that's a good, clear logical posts around some of the issues and I'd concur with all of it.

[Milltown Row2]

Why have the #ibelieveher crowd not been at those other trials? Not high profile enough

[AQMP]

God love the poor craythurs.

With all respect Seanie these people have had the last 8-9 weeks of their lives consumed by this trial. They have had to listen to all the evidence and make a huge decision on the most high profile trial there has been for years. Now they have this decision being questioned significantly and people organising mass rallies....I can see how they might crack. It doesn't mean that the person should have responded but I can understand why they felt the necessity

I think your sympathy is misplaced. They were clearly directed by the judge on this when discharged. Couldn't have been clearer. To go out 7 hours later and engage online with people shows the most amazing lack of judgement I think it's legitimate to question what else this person heard and ignored.

I haven't read the comments as they've been removed. Have you?  It was foolhardy, for all we know the person had a few drinks in them and was pissed off at the way their opinion was being undermined. That doesn't in any way undermine the decision. Don't be grasping for something that isn't there.

Three double vodkas or an Oldingsworth??

[AQMP]

I should add that if the jury didn't believe the complainant it doesn't follow at all that they believed Jackson at all.

For me the following could have occurred.

Believe complainant 100% and don't believe Jackson et al = conviction for all
Believe complainant 100% but believe Jackson and Olding about their reasonable belief in consent then only McIlroy convicted.
Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal
Don't believe complainant sufficiently  and do believe Jackson et al  = acquittal

Don't believe complainant sufficiently and don't believe Jackson et al =acquittal

Just my opinion, but I think this is the territory we're in.  If you don't believe the accuser's version of events then it doesn't really matter what the defendant says (bar a confession) you can't convict.

I thought (wrongly) that the complainant had been more credible and in that circumstance Jackson et al's evidence would have been key and might have left them on thin ice.  As I said earlier, my gut tells me with hindsight, had the defendants not given evidence they still would have been acquitted.

[Dinny Breen]

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368

[RedHand88]

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368

The old "they only got off because they are middle class" excuse...

[brokencrossbar1]

https://twitter.com/KevDoyle_Indo/status/979688678032314368

The irony of this is that she is probably 'more' upper middle class then all of them with far more 'connections '. This class thing is such a pile of crap!!!