Ulster Rugby trial -continued

kikashi FFS

The evidence presented to the judge, but is then dismissed from being shown to the jury.
Why would this be ?
I am not well up on law. Either Uk or Irish ( I'm in Republic of Ireland )

Something being suggested on twitter is that it might show a pattern. The example being that if you have 20 convictions for theft that might be held back from the jury.

I suppose that would make sense if one or more of them has previously been investigated or had allegations made against them.

I doubt their behaviour that night was a one off so I suppose it is possible.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/commonwealth-games-swimmer-rape-women-sex-friend-latest-otto-putland-a8289861.html

More "top shaggers" from the world of sport.

My DC currently attend Methody - the school are having a big 150 year anniversary coming up, with loads of celebrations and a special book which you can order.
Will be interesting to see if there is any mention of the "top shaggers" or if that chapter is now being hastily removed.

I suspect if released the information will further damn their character

Yes I think you are right.

Though I would wonder if it would be possible to question the judge's decision to not show it to the jury. Though not a lawyer so I have no idea if that is even possible.

I just can't work out how the reporting of this evidence can undermine the verdict.

As this evidence has been presented to the judge and then dismissed from being presented to jurors as part of the case, it cannot be considered NEW evidence in any trial - is that right?

So the only way this evidence could be used in a trial is if further evidence was discovered that necessitated a retrial (may have terminology wrong) and then the prosecution could then petition the judge to include it that time. So this evidence in and of itself isn't going to land them in prison?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the fact that they're legally not guilty means that this restricted evidence cannot be used to convict them and they cannot be found legally guilty off the back or sent to prison - right?

Double jeopardy in serious cases (including rape) was done away with in the UK inc NI. s75 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

There has to be sufficient evidence for that though, and AFAIK it has to be new evidence, so it depends what the restriction relates to. In theory, they could be re tried if there was some compelling evidence. But that is unlikely.

The comments on Facebook under that BBC article are really infuriating.

In fact, most of the comments on Facebook under any article relating to this case just highlight how ingrained misogyny is. Women and men alike are so apathetic that it heads towards malicious. So quick to dismiss it, to say "Is this still news?" or "What about (insert terrible subject here)?" As if people can't be annoyed or upset or campaign over more than one issue at a time.

I don't really understand how lifting reporting restrictions could undermine the verdict after it has been given. Surely even admitting that undermines the verdict.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the fact that they're legally not guilty means that this restricted evidence cannot be used to convict them and they cannot be found legally guilty off the back or sent to prison - right? So their freedom in the eyes of the law is assured. In that case should we not, as the public, be privy to information that may help inform our decisions about the defendants such as judging the relative threat to our safety if we're in the same VIP room as them.

If the information undermines our trust that the legal system came to the right conclusion then that the argument doesn't make sense. Either the information would unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendants and so concealing it ensured the right verdict was reached OR the information contains proof that the verdict was wrong and so should not have been kept hidden from the jury.

Yes NotTaken, lots of schadenfreude from me.

Monday will be interesting. Anyone else bitter and spiteful enough to have enjoyed a wee wry smile at the idea of these smug barristers having to cut short holidays and change plans because of this?
I believe a member of the jury had to do similar after their antics overrun by so long. Sweet little taste of karma there.

Well obviously it is just guessing and speculation. I can't think that it is anything else.

At the second Ched Evan's trial his girlfriend had offered a substantial amount to the hotel receptionist.

Sash do you mean as in offered a ‘payout’ to keep it out of court?

If the judge keeps the restrictions, could the complainant waive her anonymity and then reveal any additional evidence that was deemed inadmissible?

I know here in ROI abuse victims often do this so their abusers are then named and shamed. Probably not comparing like with like though.

Surely all the more reason for the reporting restrictions to be lifted, no?

Why has Stuart Oldings QC said that ( and I quote the Irish Independent website including their italics )
the lifting of reporting restrictions could 'undermine the verdict of not guilty' ?

Yes I spotted that NotTaken - it's amazing how much effort they've put into something that's "just a laugh" eh?

Hold the horses...

So which part of this is news? Rugby has been a hot bed of misogyny forever, elitist Ulster schools? Class divide? Sectarian issues? Surely not.... not wee Norn Iron.

The trial is in some way a microcosm of so many of pressure pot issues of NI. The backlash is somehow heartening as people are at last speaking with a louder more coherent voice.

Bumblefuddle I'm not speechless re the link, it was just a matter of time. Sad but a matter of time.

Took me a minute to ‘get it’...

That’s a very telling little picture isn’t it. A room full of men and these two hilarious jokers putting on a show.

Let me guess - they were all in high spirits, got a bit carried away... it’s just ‘locker room banter’, it wasn’t hurting anyone...

Can someone tell me though, why exactly did they have printed name labels of two self proclaimed top shaggers to hand?

What are they hiding?? It has to come out somehow surely. I bet those men are raging that this didn't go away with their acquittal.