Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

This is a very good informed and intelligent conversation around consent.

That's true mikado I use to frequently hear legal experts saying ignorance of the law is no defence until I heard about rape law. That is why this honest and reasonable belief in consent needs abolishing.
Either you consent or don't. Prosecution will still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did not consent. That is enough protection from miscarriages of justice.

Spokesperson for rape crisis cebrre toad 're consent, articles on paper 're consent. This article soberpaddy.com/blog/ shared on fb.

It's as if a lot of people have the same opinion on this..

In no other situation is ignorance an excuse (See judge's third instruction).

I need to catch up on the last few pages so apologies if am repeating PPs. This is still the talk of hourly news headlines in the Reolubkic. Yesterday, a first in 20 year, change in secondary school sexuality education curriculum re consent.

Thanks Zibbi

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3213069-Ulster-Rugby-trial-continued

New thread for when this one is full

I'm not sure the reporting restrictions will be lifted I don't think they have to be and I think lawyers will fight very hard to keep it closed. At least delay, delay, delay which was what today was about.

Thanks Step and Mr Writer

I have a feeling there will be a lot more to say after these reporting restrictions are lifted.

How does it work with starting a new thread? Is op still about or can anyone else do it? This one is almost full and it seems like there’s a lot more to unfold. I’ve really valued some of the insights for some of the posters here and I’d like to see it continued.

Ahh thanks bastard

Twixes I heard exactly the same rumour a few weeks ago.

I mean defence!! Sorry, typo

I heard there was another WhatsApp group with a much much much more incriminating name/title that was deemed inadmissible. It may be bollocks but if it’s true I’d say it’s evidence like that the prosecution are trying to keep quiet.

Those men are scum.

I doubt it's the latter Zibbidoo - it's the defence that are arguing to suppress it, not the prosecution.

I’m not sure where I heard that PJ has a previous accusation that was settled out of court, perhaps MN? But I was also told IRL that the complainant in this case has “done it before” meaning “cried rape”. Not sure if this is true or not. Maybe either of those are what Is to be released now?

Can't believe there is more to come out. In my experience it's usually the defence that tries to suppress information from juries. Prosecution is rarely allowed to as judges are so scared of decisions overturned on appeal. Prosecution rarely had any powers of appeal until very recently.
Remember the Ched Evans case the fact the jury were not allowed to hear that his girlfriend offered prosecution witness cash!

Methody is mixed. Can only think of one big rugby school that is boys only in NI.

Methody is a mixed school eloise

Letter in The Irish Times (today I think) commenting on a piece by Orna Mulcahy suggested a mixed school would be better to prevent the misogynistic behaviour and texting we saw from some members of the Ulster rugby team.
Isn't Methodist College aka Methody ( where CG and PJ went to school) a mixed school ?

In some cases it can be evidence/testimony that the prosecution wants to introduce. The judge hears the evidence without the jury present so as not to prejudice any jury and then decides whether or not it can be heard. I have no idea if this is the case in this trial.

Haha. From what I've gathered release of the legal argument will show some perhaps 'freer' talk from the counsels in absence of the jury? Not at all sure though as I didn't even think this happened.....

It would be good if these details are released before Ulster Rugby take their decision.

I have no legal knowledge so what kind of evidence could be left to be heard/reported? Also, if there are forms of evidence that the jury are not supposed to hear because it prejudices them (supposedly against the defendants) then how can it be considered a fair verdict? Is this like the cases in the 80s where juries were told after not guilty verdicts that the defendant already had previous convictions?

Dead on? Nah still not even a hallion or a ganch that'd be promotion.

What will release of the legal arguments do? I take it it's unlikely to do their case any good?