The ulster rugby trial

[caprea]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

What inconsistencies in her evidence? I'm only aware of the not mentioning to the doctor she was orally raped.

[johnnycool]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.

[David McKeown]

Jurors can only be dismissed in North now if either side can show cause. You used to be able to manipulate juries you can not anymore.

I still struggle with the 9-3 split on the jury, and from recollection I think you said that's not unusual at all.

I remember an old concept that went something like "justice must be done and must be seen to be done". Not sure if there's any weight in that at all, but you'd think a split closer to 50:50 would give a better appearance of justice being seen to be done. If you toss an unbiased coin 12 times, it would be very rare that you'd get one side coming up 9 times.

Would a 9-3 jury in favour of females be also common (or is there a reason there are much more males in the pool, or is that even the case)?

The jury pool is made up of people in the area on the electoral register. A percentage of them are called using a formulae. Some won't show up and some will get excused in advanced for a plethora of reasons. A panel of about 15 is then chosen from that pool. Without knowing how many men and women are in the pool it is impossible to calculate the odds of a 9-3 split. Were it 50-50 then you would expect a 9-3 split about 5.4% of the time. Although given the low sample size the laws of probabilities would suggest the laws of probabilities don't apply. That percentage chance changes dramatically if the pool isn't 50-50 to begin.

On an aside a coin toss isn't 50-50 either there is a slight mathematical bias toward the side of top when the coin is flipped.

[AZOffaly]

David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

[Taylor]

Firstly,
Syf - you have made a complete cnut of yourself on this thread. Some of the stuff you have come out with have been embarrassing and crigeworthy. Given you run and hide when asked a difficult question says it all. But it takes all sorts to make a discussion board I guess.

The #ibelieveher crowd seem to be an hysterical crowd of baying women with pitchforks. Reading some of their comments shows they know even less about the case than we do.

Matt Coopers show yesterday evening for the first hour was basically 3 or 4 women feeding the #ibelieveher crowd. You would have thought they were found guilty. Very unbalanced and unlike Cooper however he did say they asked a number of men to come on and discuss it but all refused. No doubt this was because they would have been called rape apologists and castigated. Perhaps even their careers ruined.

Someone posted earlier that the public would have had the same info as the jury. Complete nonsense. We were getting Twitter updates and a few newsapaper columns, not almost 9 weeks of evidence.

The boys were innocent until proven guilty.......found not guilty so as BCB said they are innocent. Complete arseholes and neanderthals but innocent nonetheless

[David McKeown]

David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

It is as I know it can be committed recklessly in the republic. I would need to check but I also don't think consent is defined in statute although that may have changed in recent years.

I think it's along the lines of a man commits rape if he has intercourse with a person who did not consent and he either knew this or was reckless. I'm no expert though and I would need to do a little research.

[David McKeown]

As for the possibility of a civil trial I would think it unlikely. The complete dismissal of all charges particularly those against McIlroy, the potential cost implications if she can't get legal aid, the lack of anonymity, the lack of protections regarding rumoured evidence that wasn't admissible at the criminal trial would all suggest to me that it's unlikely.

Of course I could be wrong she may sue for trespass to the person and may get legal aid etc so you never know.

Similarly I doubt the defendants are likely to sue the PPS or PSNI for malicious prosecution or misfeasence in public office simply because such torts particularly the former are difficult to make out but again I could be completely wrong and am not privy to what may happened.

[RedHand88]

Taylor that's the best post I've seen on this thread.

[brokencrossbar1]

Two questions

Did paddy Jackson know when he gave his statement that the dna evidence showed no evidence of him having vaginal intercourse with the compliant? He he didn't know it makes his account more believeable as the DNA evidence could have sunk him if it showed a sperm sample from him.

Was the compliant wearing shoes during the incident? She said Jackson pulled down her trousers at the start of the rape and at the end she put her underwear in her pocket. Meaning it had come all the way off her legs. If she was wearing shoes who took the shoes off? If she took them off during sexual activity it does denote consent to a fair ..nearly absolute degree if i was on the jury.

Probably no one knows here but if i was on the jury i would have liked to have known the answers to the two questions.

I am not sure about the shoes but vaguely in reference to your first question I beleiv that in Paddy Jackson's first interview when he made his statements the defence solicitor did not have access to the forensic evidence. I would tend to agree with you that this goes a long way to providing back up to his story.

In regards to Stuart Olding statement maybe I am being harsh but he categorically states how he told the truth the whole way through the investigation and trial. The IP didn't. The reason why I think it's important is that what has also been lost a bit is that the IP made an allegation against him of vaginal rape. It was not proceeded but it still sat on the books and he had to be declared not guilty if it too. She later recanted her story and aid it was only oral rape. She lied about that. Plain and simple. This idea that she is whiter than white is incorrect. This to my mind brings a lot of her credibility into question

[AQMP]

Anyone know what Joe McVeigh (one of Jackson's legal team) was referring to when he said:

"All the lawyers have been distracted by having to man the barriers against a flood of misinformed, misconceived and malicious content on the internet, particularly during the last phase of this trial, and, worryingly even at the hands of public servants who should have known better."

[Asal Mor]

Firstly,
Syf - you have made a complete cnut of yourself on this thread. Some of the stuff you have come out with have been embarrassing and crigeworthy. Given you run and hide when asked a difficult question says it all. But it takes all sorts to make a discussion board I guess.

The #ibelieveher crowd seem to be an hysterical crowd of baying women with pitchforks. Reading some of their comments shows they know even less about the case than we do.

Matt Coopers show yesterday evening for the first hour was basically 3 or 4 women feeding the #ibelieveher crowd. You would have thought they were found guilty. Very unbalanced and unlike Cooper however he did say they asked a number of men to come on and discuss it but all refused. No doubt this was because they would have been called rape apologists and castigated. Perhaps even their careers ruined.

Someone posted earlier that the public would have had the same info as the jury. Complete nonsense. We were getting Twitter updates and a few newsapaper columns, not almost 9 weeks of evidence.

The boys were innocent until proven guilty.......found not guilty so as BCB said they are innocent. Complete arseholes and neanderthals but innocent nonetheless

I think this says it all.

[AQMP]

Maybe this:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rugby-rape-trial-verdict-jackson-and-olding-pursue-lawsuit-against-bbc-over-online-article-36754712.html

Ulster and Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to pursue a privacy lawsuit against the BBC following their acquittal at Belfast Crown Court.The action, initiated in 2016, had been put on hold pending the outcome of the rape trial.  Following yesterday's verdict, a solicitor representing Mr Jackson, confirmed the action would now go ahead. The civil suit was filed after the identities of the two rugby players were reported prior to them being charged.

Both men issued writs against the BBC seeking damages for misuse of private information after details were published in an online news article on November 1, 2016, months before charges were brought against them.  The report named the two players and said they were two of three men questioned about alleged sex offences at a property in Belfast on June 28, 2016.It said they were arrested that June but details had just emerged.

The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance.  In a statement at the time, Mr Jackson's solicitor said he and his client were both disappointed and concerned that the information had been "leaked to the press" before the investigation had concluded and well in advance of any final decision on a charge.  In their civil action, Mr Jackson and Mr Olding contend their arrests were a private matter and they were not given sufficient notice for a right of reply before the article appeared. Lawyers for the two players also raised issues over how the information was obtained by the BBC.

The case was last before the Belfast High Court last October, when it was adjourned.  The civil proceedings had been the subject of reporting restrictions which prevented them being named, but this was lifted in June last year when the players confirmed they were no longer seeking anonymity.  Mr Jackson has also initiated a separate civil action against a freelance sports journalist and persons unknown in the PSNI.  But details of this case have yet to be outlined in court.

[LeoMc]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.

+1
The defence of reasonable belief that consent was given just shows the shades of grey in interpreting events.

[grounded]

Justice done and seen to be done. Unanimity of it is very telling.

I take it from some of your posts that you are from a legal background. I have been somewhat taken aback by the reaction of some on twitter from people on both sides of the argument in relation to the verdict. Are their likely consequences for those expressing opinions about both parties? Also given the high bar of reasonable doubt, and the admission some of the defendants could there be a civil case in your opinion?

I have to say from a personal perspective I applaud Stuart Olding's reaction and apology to the complainant, cold comfort I'm sure to her, but I thought it took guts.

Twitter is the hotbed for fools and those with agendas. There will be no consequences really but there could be. The reality is that this is feeding people's agendas yesterday and today and maybe tomorrow but the old phrase that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper will kick in and they will be debating the 8th Amendment or whatever their next cause is.

It has been stated on here that there is the possibility of a civil action. As the balance of probabilities is the burden of proof there is w better chance that she might win it. I honestly am not sure that will happen in terms of running it to a hearing. If this woman does she loses her anonymity. If she starts one and doesn't run it the whole way to hearing and accepts an out of court settlement then she will be castigated as the perception will be that she did it for the money. Also if she runs it and loses then the stark reality is that the court would likely award costs against her and the costs of 4 defendants in a high court civil action will be huge. Easily half a million. I also think that given the seemingly very clear cut approach of the jury to a finding of not guilty then I reckon that she'd be on a hiding to nothing.

Olding is being applauded for his statement but read it again. He's basically calling her a liar. It may be couched up in nicer language but at the back of it all he's saying he doesn't believe her side of the story. That has been lost as well in translation.

Jeez, another 5 pages since yesterday evening!

Agree bcb1, I think the IP would be ill advised to take this any further.  Look at where we are today.  OK, not guilty all around, but she is still generating a lot of sympathy right from the #ibelieveher crowd to people like me and others here, who while fully accepting the jury's verdict as being the "right" one and being honest enough to state that I probably would have reached the same verdict, don't believe that she out and out lied.  The number of inconsistencies in her evidence taken in the round meant that the evidence was not near beyond a reasonable doubt.  So I still have sympathy for what she's been through.

Also although the defendants are free, they're not exactly leaving the court "without a stain on their character".  So again the focus is still on the four boyos and it remains to be seen how Ulster Rugby deal with this case.  There's still a lot of public opprobrium for them and their attitudes.  As reported on joe.ie Harrison's decision to decamp straight to the bar of the Hilton Hotel from the court at lunchtime made me ask has he learned anything from this process!?!?

All that could be lost with another case and given the speed an unanimity of the decision would she even make the "on the balance of probability" threshold?

Also quick thanks to yourself and David McKeown for the legal info.  Never thought I'd say I learned a lot on the GAA Board, but I did!

Sometimes you need to separate the wheat from the chaff and there was loads of chaff on this thread but the nuggets from David and BCB give a little more insight into what's going on.

The definition of legal rape was a very new concept to me and I'd say to 95% of the population at large.

+1
The defence of reasonable belief that consent was given just shows the shades of grey in interpreting events.

My feelings as well. I appreciate a hypothetical question( and a bit daft) but given the complexities of the case particularly the area of consent; had an eye witness been present the entire time, could they have ascertained for certain that consent was obtained?

[Avondhu star]

Will Paddy's house be added to the tour bus route of Belfast?