Obviously, the big rape trial in Northern Ireland is something that everybody has thought about, spoken about, and perhaps has had a view on too. I really thought that the case would end in an acquittal purely from what I heard reported in the media. That said we only hear parts of the evidence and not a lot of the legal argument that takes place.
The trial itself appeared to have been run in a fair manner at first glance, however, if we start to look a little further into the process I believe that there are several question marks over certain things that happened.
I must preface my remarks by saying I believe in the presumption of innocence, and that it must be afforded to all people who are charged with a crime. On the island we presume all people to be innocent until the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. That means if a person is not found guilty then they should not be punished or does it?
As important as the right to the presumption of innocence is my belief that victims of crime must also have rights. They must have the right to be heard, not to be punished because they were a victim of crime and to feel safe.
As the dust settles after the trial I wonder have those rights been afforded? I know that Paddy Jackson was one of the men charged with a crime and the court found him not guilty. That’s ok but lots of people are now of the opinion that Paddy Jackson did something illegal even though the court said: “No the state has failed to prove that to us beyond a reasonable doubt”.
We had protests around the country as people came out to say that they believed the victim, we see that Paddy Jackson’s legal team have issued legal proceedings against a member of the Irish senate who said that he believed the victim and that the “smug well-connected middle-class boys won out again”. Ironically lots of people would say that was a worthy description of most male senators!
The first question I ask is it fair that the accused is named, and the world hears all about him even before there is any proof that either a crime took place, or that he was guilty of any wrongdoing.
Is it fair that complainants in rape trials in Ireland and the UK are entitled to anonymity and it is an offence to publish their identity? Yes, it is, however, it's not fair that people can attend court, discover who she is and judge her and tell everyone about her. I for one was shown pictures of a person who was supposedly the accuser in this case. This is wrong.
The entire court case revolved around respect, respect for self, respect for others and finally respect for the decision of the court. We have been presented with a narrative that because some people play a particular sport at a very high level that somehow, they are different to the ordinary Joe in the street. Maybe their value system is different but at the end of the day what’s right for me and you should be right for them and surely if it’s wrong for me it’s wrong for them too.
I agree with public protest as a right, however, I’m not sure about the protests that are going on now. We have seen rallies take place in Dublin and Belfast to express solidarity with all victims of sexual crime.
Several thousand people marched through Dublin city from Dame Street to the Department of Justice on St Stephen’s Green.
As was the case in a rally last Thursday in the city, many carried home-made placards with “I stand with her”, “I believe her” and “#MeToo” written on them.
While we might not agree with the findings of the court obviously in a civilised law abiding land we must accept that the decision of a sworn jury who have heard each and every word of the case. They really must be in a better position to decide on who is or is not guilty of a crime bearing in mind the evidence that is presented and the fact they have heard it all. Those of us who are following the case from afar are not as aware of what was presented in court.
Arising from the coverage and interest in the court case there are several issues up for discussion or clarification. One of them is the rights of people, both the victim and the accused.
How can they be protected, is it fair that a victim of a crime can be further victimised because they report a crime? Is it fair that they must give evidence in open court and have no protection such as their own representation by a solicitor etc? If a person is accused of a crime and found not guilty is it fair that their name is tarnished forever?
Maybe the court case in the North will bring some good, some changes or even a review of how things are done. The fact that a victim has the right to make a victim impact statement in the Republic is a good thing however it’s actually a very new thing. The law like life is an evolving thing and needs to continually change and be upgraded.
Regardless of anything else at the end of the day like the referee, the decision of the jury must be accepted too.
