Ulster Rugby trial -continued

I thought the whole point of prosecution evidence was to prejudice the jury against the defendant.

Nope, it’s a sly little dance, isn’t it? Prosecutors and defence are technically only to display the facts. Any prejudicing has to be very subtle... less difficult for defence when you live in such an intrinsically misogynistic society.

www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ulster-rugby-and-irfu-officials-under-pressure-from-sponsors-1.3460021#.WtBPo6Nxx5A.mailto

This is great. Sponsors have been contacted directly and asked what their view is. Many seem to be -hiding behind- waiting for the findings of the internal review. At least there is now a comprehensive list of companies.

How would the Scottish concept of "not proven" work in a case like this?

It seems the more the evidence shows a man is guilty the less likely you are able to show it to a jury.
Don't get me wrong but I thought the whole point of prosecution evidence was to prejudice the jury against the defendant.

Anita - sounds very similar to my friends rape trial. It felt like she was on trial. Her sexual history brought up. Not his previous convictions.

Made me so angry. Bearing in mind she was unrecognisable when I went to see her in hospital. Her face was about 3 times it’s normal size where he’d beaten her repeatedly as she fought back.

In the end she lay very still, until he’d finished.

But yes, seeing pictures of someone nearly beaten to death, and they ask about her sexual history

If there are lawyers willing to make up stories for their clients in the cases where there are huge amounts of physical evidence, then what chance does your average rape victim have, where there’s little physical evidence, you freeze, don’t say no or scream, and know the person. They will always say they thought they had consent, and that the woman has had sex and regretted it

I get that everyone has a right to representation. But since when did that include lying, to get the criminal off? How is that justice.

The only reason Ched Evans case was overturned was due to victim’s sexual history. Why does that mean anything? Or are these the same people that think prostitutes can’t be raped.

Suggesting "Prejudicing the jury" with evidence showing the defendants are lying fuckwits doesn't seem like justice to me

Btw - I saw this recently - it's well worth a read.

victimfocus.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/what-if-rape-was-responded-to-like-terrorism/

Crimes against women are simply not taken seriously.

Quite.

The prejudicing the jury thing always confused me - surely the jury should have the full facts?

Their argument was "writing down an intention is not the same as doing it, and it was written too long beforehand" There was other stuff as well, but I don't want to go into too much detail.

But why anita would that not be akin to perverting the course of justice? Has the law just got so complex now that it’s not serving it’s own purpose? Ie he has form, he wrote down that he wanted to do it, but that’s irrelevant, let’s talk about whom you lost your virginity to and what colour pants you wear instead’

The law was supposed to have changed in 2003. And I guess using sexual history as evidence against complainants more common than government or legal profession will ever admit

They also applied for, and were granted, permission to cross-examine her on her past sexual history. Which they did. At length.

It may have done - I'm not sure.

This was a couple of years ago - but definitely not in the case I was witness for. We were told any witness mentioning the previous convictions would result in a mis-trial.

it did feel like the victim was in a medieval trial for witchcraft at times. The odds were so totally stacked against her.

Anita - I thought previous convictions could be heard now. This feels like going back to the 90s

The rape case I was involved in (I wasn't the victim) also suppressed evidence.

The accused had written stuff down about his intent to rape the victim. It was inadmissible - as it "may unduly prejudice the jury". He had previous sexual convictions as well - not allowed to be spoken of, although I understand that's true of all criminal cases.

She did get him convicted, but she had an awful time in court at the hands of his barrister who spent almost 2 days telling her she'd made it all up, and she could surely have got away if she'd wanted to, and picking apart every piece of her police statement.

There's another case where evidence withheld from jury. Surprise surprise a not guilty verdict.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/6030834/otto-putland-ieuan-lloyd-rape-trial-whatsapp-sex/

I am not a criminal lawyer so debating the legal technicalities of the case is beyond me. And from what I have observed from this trial and experienced IRL there is no morality in the law: it seems too subjective a concept for the courts.

I am so grateful that the press in the ROI continues to report on it as it all but disappeared from the UK news. I am also encouraged by BOI reviewing its relationship with UR. If more corporates for follow suit, the chances are these scum bags will be pursuing their careers elsewhere.

“Surely the real picture of the sheets should have been shown with the recent blood highlighted and the jury told to discount the old stains? ”

Surely the obligation is on the state to only present relevant evidence to the jury and not unrelated prejudicial material.
The alternative to airbrush in this situation, where the judge has agreed that evidence of extra unrelated stains are inadmissible, would have been to not let the pictures in at all as opposed to putting the unaltered pictures to the jury.
I do think it’s an an odd solve and possibly not a great one, but it was in an effort to allow the jury to see the pictures of the relevant blood which they otherwise would not have seen due to the way in which the state had photographed and gathered their evidence.

Been pondering on this, was posted a bit back in the thread.

It’s a very delicate subject area. But looking at this case particularly, if there was a manslaughter equivalent for rape, I wonder if the accused would still have been acquitted?

Yes, it's impossible to know. I think having other possible outcomes would eventually create a slow movement towards confidence in finding accused men culpable at some level.

I’m addition, would a judgement of the manslaughter equivalent of rape made the victim feel like justice had in some part been done, or would it be an insult?

This is so difficult to comment on because its so current and real for that young woman. And yes, I can see how anything less than a rape conviction could feel insulting for any woman who has been a victim.

However, speaking personally, I have some relevant experience but with a lot of lapsed time and I think I could support a policy/law change that might reduced offending/reoffending, even if it did not feel like "justice".

There's a balancing act in what we look for from the justice system when a crime is committed...justice, a "sense" of justice for the victim, keeping the public safe, eg, custody, reducing offending/reoffending, rehabilitation.... ultimately fewer victims. Currently we fail on all of these.

We have UR season tickets through work and take clients a few times a year. The boss can usually rely on me to volunteer to go at least once a season- that won't be the case if they play either of them after this shit show, and I'll be honest about why.

Yes I was horrified when I read what evidence had not been shown to the jury. I must watch too much American TV - I didn’t know an accused person could get their lawyer to say they would never discuss a piece of evidence???? I mean, surely the police could have done DNA sampling on the blood? And why was the semen kept out of evidence? I had heard during the trial
that some crucial prosecution evidence was ruled inadmissible. So angry. I can see now why people resort to punishment beatings instead of reporting sex crimes to the police although I always thought I was above that kind of thing!!!

I can't believe the airbrushed pictures of the sheets were shown to the jury as "evidence". Surely the real picture of the sheets should have been shown with the recent blood highlighted and the jury told to discount the old stains? They were shown a false representation of the sheets - which is really troubling 0 is this now standard in trials that evidence has been redacted/edited but it is not highlighted as such?

This has really upset me. I was already upset over her treatment, but finding out the judge discounted vital evidence has really set me off. Back to ranting at DH about it all now. I feel so sorry for the victim.

Bank of Ireland also has lots of female employees and customers. I wonder how many communications there have been?

According to UR website Bank of Ireland use the stadium for corporate events, business and networking. I can't see how they can expect any woman to attend if they continue and the players are reinstated.

I can't help feeling that any form of justice would be better than none even if it's a lesser charge.

I agree. Rape too hard to prove. What about ABH for the internal injuries she suffered?