Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

One eyed Jack

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The one & only suicide story I linked to was very like the part of this case that I'm interested in. The way she was treated. She cried as her underwear were shown & she then had to read what was printed on the underwear "little devil". This is no way to treat any woman let alone a minor. The not guilty verdict is not up for descusion. It has no relevance to the story being reported worldwide. The story reported worldwide is the comments made by the barrister & the judge letting it happen.

If the judge directed the jury to ignore the comments then the journalist would have reported this.

It would be equally unjust for the same comments on clothing if 20 year old was wearing a huddy. A huddy doesn't indicate guilt, intent or anything else except that you were wearing a huddy. Totally ridiculous comments

How do you know this?

It’s far more likely that they wouldn’t, as facts don’t sell newspapers and generate click bait.

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

What exactly have they read ?

They have read exactly what you & I have read. The ridiculous comments by the barrister suggesting that a girl wearing a thong is going out looking for sex.

Google the case & you will see it reported worldwide from news outlets like CNN (fake news you cry) & BBC to name just two out of dozens & dozens

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your assertion that the whole trial process centred around what the defendant believes is clearly false.

I’ll ask you one question - who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence?

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

It’s far more likely that they wouldn’t, as facts don’t sell newspapers and generate click bait.

It is highly unlikely & you know it. A newspaper & reporter deliberately miss reporting what was said in court. Court where they have a record of every sneeze & cough. A reporter won't get away with that.

Not a hope in hell. Try again

One eyed Jack

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It is highly unlikely & you know it. A newspaper & reporter deliberately miss reporting what was said in court. Court where they have a record of every sneeze & cough. A reporter won't get away with that.

Not a hope in hell. Try again

I don’t know that, I’ve just told you I know the opposite to be true. Newspapers aren’t obligated to report anything they don’t want to, and their editors can choose from details they are permitted to report, the details of any case that they do report on. That’s why you’ll see a very different perspective on cases and how they are reported in the Daily Mail, or the BBC (well, how they used to be reported in the BBC at least before they too went all clickbait).

Court reports and records are not the same as what’s published in a rag I wouldn’t wipe my arse with.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll ask you one question - who is on trial accused of committing a criminal offence?

The defendant.

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They have read exactly what you & I have read.

So they know sweet fluck all about the case then.

Thought so..

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

Court reports and records are not the same as what’s published in a rag I wouldn’t wipe my arse with.

That maybe so and yet no one has denied what was said. No one. Not the DPP. Not the defense. Not anyone in the court at the time. Its all a huge conspiracy with dozens of people involved ensuring that we get fake news. I bet you are a Trump fan.

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

So they know sweet fluck all about the case then.

They know as much as you. They know that wearing a thong does not mean that you are out looking for sex. They know that it was wrong for the barrister to make the comments that she made. Good old Leo doesn't believe that a thong equals sex.

You have got to love boards.ie. People will defend the indefensible. We even had posters trying to defend the defendant by using words like pedophile & under age sex when no one was suggesting that these were true. Sometimes saying nothing is the best approach

Hercule Poirot

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Yes, that is their job after all, I think she's pointing to the fact that she was allowed to do it in a court of law - if wearing a thong is "asking for it" as she seemed to imply then the majority of women are in trouble, and it sets a very dangerous precedent for future rape trials

Yes, it is shameful that the defence went down this route, to be honest, but surely, as the defence, they have the right to bring any counter-argument to the table they wish even if it is as whimsical and farcical as this one? It's up to the judge and jury to dismiss any such argument after careful consideration.

Did Coppinger ignore the fact the Defence Barrister was a woman? The law and its practitioners are far from perfect in many cases but in recent months the legal system has been disgracefully undermined by a bias third wave feminist agenda

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They know as much as you. They know that wearing a thong does not mean that you are out looking for sex. They know that it was wrong for the barrister to make the comments that she made. Good old Leo doesn't believe that a thong equals sex.

See this is part of the problem..

Leo really should spend less time virtue signaling on social media and more time sorting out the serous issues we face as a country just now..

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

The defendant.

Precisely, because what initiated a trial is because the defendant plead not guilty, whereas there is no trial if a defendant pleads guilty. The defendant is the only individual at risk of being deprived of their liberty if they are found guilty, and because they plead not guilty and put the complainant and the State through what is often a very costly and drawn out and traumatic experience for all involved, the Judge in sentencing will take these factors into account in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

A defendant if they had plead guilty might receive a suspended sentence, whereas if a defendant is found guilty after a trial, this may have far more substantial consequences for the defendant as an outcome of the trial.

The handful of cases that are reported in the media are in no way representative of the approximately 200 other rape trials held in the CCC in just one year alone. The reason they happen is because the defendant has plead not guilty, they claim that they are innocent of the charge of rape. That doesn’t take account of the hundreds of other cases where the accused pleads guilty and therefore there is no trial. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial as it is the defendant who is accused of a criminal offence. There are no legal consequences for the complainant as an outcome of any trial, unless the complainant is discovered during an investigation or at the trial of the defendant to have attempted to pervert the course of justice, and those cases are rare.

The Courts have to regard the rights of the defendant, whereas the complainant has no such legal rights as they are appearing as a witness for the States prosecution of the defendant. The complainant is entitled to legal representation when the defence counsel applies for a Section 3 application to introduce into evidence a complainants previous sexual history and will be granted permission to do so only in very limited circumstances.

This idea that the complainant is made to feel like they are on trial is because their evidence is being questioned, and nobody wants to have their evidence questioned, but that is the only way in which the defendant is able to maintain their right to a fair trial, whereas there are no legal consequences for the complainant.

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

See this is part of the problem..

Leo really should spend less time virtue signaling on social media and more time sorting out the serous issues we face as a country just now..

Since people have taken their lives over similar court room scenes. I would classify it as serious.. What relevance do you think thongs have in relation to consent?

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote: »

See this is part of the problem..

Leo really should spend less time virtue signaling on social media and more time sorting out the serous issues we face as a country just now..

Actually he was in the Dail when he said

"It doesn't matter what you wear. It doesn't matter where you went, who you went with or what you took, whether it was drugs or alcohol," the Taoiseach said.

If It doesn't matter what you wear then it should NOT have been brought up in court.


Change is a commin

mickrock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It also isn’t either for the defence or the prosecution to prove one way or the other that the complainant has been the victim of rape. That’s not the purpose of a trial.

I'm a bit confused by this statement.

What, then, was the purpose of the trial?

One eyed Jack

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That maybe so and yet no one has denied what was said. No one. Not the DPP. Not the defense. Not anyone in the court at the time. Its all a huge conspiracy with dozens of people involved ensuring that we get fake news. I bet you are a Trump fan.

Dafuq? :pac:

As an aside, I was always a fan of Hillary until she rolled out Lena Dunham, who was known to have sexually molested her sister and was then a figurehead of the metoo movement saying believeher, until one of her mates was accused of sexual assault, then she threw one of the Sisterhood under the bus, not unlike Hillary did with her sisters when her husband Bill was accused of all sorts of sexual misconduct.

That being said, if you understand anything at all, a lot of the reason why nobody who was involved in this specific case will comment on it is because they can’t, or they will be found in contempt of court, like the juror who was whipping up a storm on social media in the trial in Belfast. They can’t comment on it, it’s as simple as that.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Did Coppinger ignore the fact the Defence Barrister was a woman? The law and its practitioners are far from perfect in many cases but in recent months the legal system has been disgracefully undermined by a bias third wave feminist agenda

Female defence is the best defense for a rape trial. Subconsciously people think that a woman would only defend an innocent man accused of rape. In the states its common get a black lawyer to defend a racist hate crime. What black person would defend a racist person?

The Bishop Basher

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Actually he was in the Dail when he said


If It doesn't matter what you wear then it should NOT have been brought up in court.


Change is a commin

They’re just empty sound bites to keep people like you happy..

I see they work too..

Leo won’t be changing anything..

One eyed Jack

mickrock wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this statement.

What, then, was the purpose of the trial?

To allow the defendant the right to defend themselves against the accusations made against them by the prosecution. A trial only commences if the accused maintains they are not guilty. Then it is the job of the prosecution to present their case for the jury to support their assertion that the defendant is guilty of committing the offence they are accused of by legal counsel for the State, which is often mistaken as representing the complainant.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Precisely, because what ........

........for the complainant.

I agree with almost everything you wrote there. Most people do.

But it had absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendant beliefs.

Have you moved into a different argument or are you trying to confuse with a wall of text?

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

That being said, if you understand anything at all, a lot of the reason why nobody who was involved in this specific case will comment on it is because they can’t, or they will be found in contempt of court, like the juror who was whipping up a storm on social media in the trial in Belfast. They can’t comment on it, it’s as simple as that.

Nah that doesn't wash. "a lot" isn't everyone. Courts are full of people not involved in the case. I've sat through a few days in court for the entertainment. It can be fascinating. The court has always been full. You can't be in contempt of court for reporting the truth without identifying anyone. If anything I'd imagine the reporter would be in contempt of court for deliberately twisting the truth. Certainly a greater chance of being in contempt for telling lies than someone telling the truth

Try make up something else. It might sound more believable

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

Leo won’t be changing anything..

I think you are wrong about that but we'll have to wait & see what the new recommendations are from the committee.

Bottom line is we can't have a court system that discourages victims from reporting crimes. That's a failed court system.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Female defence is the best defense for a rape trial. Subconsciously people think that a woman would only defend an innocent man accused of rape. In the states its common get a black lawyer to defend a racist hate crime. What black person would defend a racist person?

Well no the defence was pure rubbish to be honest. That is up there with the weakest defence argument ever put forward by any defence team. if they are reduced to showing the girls underwear in court then you know they are well and truly fúcked. Thats how the law works though, (evidence presented as fact over feelings). It may not be nice for a girl who is a genuine victim but its the fairest system going. You cant always assume the woman is correct in such an accusation so there has to be a strong case to put forward that a rape took place or else an innocent person could go to jail. The left are intent on making it easier to convict men on accusation alone though rather than hard facts and are using these instances in cases as ammunition to strengthen their argument.

nullzero

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OK. Stop responding then.

I don't take instructions from you.

I'll stop correcting you when you stop posting the same incorrect information.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I agree with almost everything you wrote there. Most people do.

But it had absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendant beliefs.

Have you moved into a different argument or are you trying to confuse with a wall of text?

It is, because in order for the defendant to be found guilty of having committed a crime, the prosecution has to be able to demonstrate that the defendant knew that they were committing an offence -


Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.


If the defence counsel can show the jury that the defendant was not intending to commit rape, and had no intention of committing rape, and was not aware they were committing rape, then that adds to casting reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant. One of the easiest ways to do that is to appeal to the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes so to speak (or underwear, if you like?), and imagine what they would be thinking in those circumstances. It’s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. They’re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Well no the defence was pure rubbish to be honest. That is up there with the weakest defence argument ever put forward by any defence team. if they are reduced to showing the girls underwear in court then you know they are well and truly fúcked. Thats how the law works though, facts over feelings. It may not be nice for a girl who is a genuine victim but its the fairest system going. You cant always assume the woman is correct in such an accusation. The left are intent on making it easier to convict men on accusation alone though rather than hard facts and are using these instances in cases as ammunition to strengthen their argument.

I have to disagree. It was clever defence. There are still some people who believe that some deserve to be raped because of the way they are dressed. Some believe that it's not a man's fault when you put so much flesh in front of them. Judges themselves have made comments over the years alluding to as much. In summing up in the 80s many judges talked about the way the girl was dressed & then went on to hand down a light or suspended sentence. I'm not suggesting that this guy was guilty but the defence only has to put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind. The thong & her comment might be enough to put doubt in someone's head.

If wearing a thong does not mean that you are looking for sex then the defense should not have been allowed to make the comment. As I said before it would be like saying that a teenager is guilty because he is in a tracksuit or a hoodie. Just because we see some trouble makers in hoodies doesn't mean that wearing a hoodie makes you guilty of a crime. To encourage the jury to believe that a hoodie =criminal is wrong too

Sleeper12

nullzero wrote:

I'll stop correcting you when you stop posting the same incorrect information.

But, but, but you said that was the end of it?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have to disagree. It was clever defence. There are still some people who believe that some deserve to be raped because of the way they are dressed. Some believe that it's not a man's fault when you put so much flesh in front of them. Judges themselves have made comments over the years alluding to as much. In summing up in the 80s many judges talked about the way the girl was dressed & then went on to hand down a light or suspended sentence.. I'm not suggesting that this guy was guilty but the defence only has to put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind. The thong & her comment might be enough to put doubt in someone's head.

If wearing a thong does not mean that you are looking for sex then the defense should not have been allowed to make the comment. As I said before it would be like saying that a teenager is guilty because he is in a tracksuit or a hoodie. Just because we see some trouble makers in hoodies doesn't mean that wearing a hoodie makes you guilty of a crime. To encourage the jury to believe that a hoodie =criminal is wrong too

You gave no specific example of this and then referred to the 80s.... Three decades ago
its the defences job to discredit the prosecution. Rape is a serious allegation so the burden of proof as in the case of murder should be put on the prosecution.

A good prosecution should be able to counter argue and swat that argument aside at this stage. Surely its not the first instance of such a defence and wont be the last even if the feminists kick and scream from here to Timbuktu

Sleeper12

One eyed Jack wrote:

Mens rea (/ˈmÉ›nz ˈriËÉ™/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

One eyed Jack wrote:

If the defence counsel can show the jury that the defendant was not intending to commit rape, and had no intention of committing rape, and was not aware they were committing rape, then that adds to casting reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant. One of the easiest ways to do that is to appeal to the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes so to speak (or underwear, if you like?), and imagine what they would be thinking in those circumstances. It’s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. They’re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.

I was trying to make this point earlier. Consent trials are very difficult trials. It is he said, she said. It is entirely possible that a jury might 100 percent believe that the victim did not give consent & at the same time have reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that there was no consent. A jury can 100 percent believe that the girl didn't give consent yet still acquit the defendant. Unlike what some posters will have you believe the defendant getting not guilty does not mean that she brought false charges. It does not mean that she lied

In some trials there is no winner

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

You gave no specific example of this and then referred to the 80s.... Three decades ago its the defences job to discredit the prosecution. Rape is a serious allegation so the burden of proof as in the case of murder should be put on the prosecution.

Humans don't evolve that fast. Yes 30 years ago but do you honestly suppose that we have rid planet of that type of thinking in 30 years? Some people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days. They believe that noah had baby dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs on the ark. Some people actually believe that the earth is flat or that man hasn't walked on the moon. Some believe everything Trump says. There is all kinds of stupid on this planet. 30 years is not long enough to suggest that these people have become extinct. Imo the stupid is increasing rather than decreasing

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, because in order for the defendant to be found guilty of having committed a crime, the prosecution has to be able to demonstrate that the defendant knew that they were committing an offence -


Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.


If the defence counsel can show the jury that the defendant was not intending to commit rape, and had no intention of committing rape, and was not aware they were committing rape, then that adds to casting reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant. One of the easiest ways to do that is to appeal to the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes so to speak (or underwear, if you like?), and imagine what they would be thinking in those circumstances. It’s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. They’re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.

I am aware of mens rea and agree that a potential strategy for any defense team in any rape case is that the defendant honestly believed he had consent.

This does not support your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendants beliefs.

Another strategy, seemingly common from rape cases I've seen reported, is to imply that the complainant intended to have sex, and did actually consent.

As pointed out, the "evidence" used by the defense to support these implications often has nothing to do with the defendant or his beliefs. In fact it would be impossible for the defendant to know anything about them, such as private text messages sent by the complainant to friends a day after the incident.

And your 100% focus on mens rea ignores the other essential.part of a crime, the actus reus. If a man intends to have sex with a woman regardless of whether she consents, but she does in fact consent, has a rape taken place? I assume you'd say no (as would I).

So the logic that mens rea is crucial therefore the "whole trial process" is about this aspect is false from first principles. The actus reus is also crucial and this is why the defense focus on the behaviour of the complainant in situations where the defendant has no opportunity to form beliefs about her.

Mrsmum

From reading this thread I think women should be very, very nervous putting on any underwear other than a pair of bloomers, preferably with a chastity belt. Anything remotely sexy apparently gives a consent message and in court these knickers are enough to cause reasonable doubt. Nice get out of jail card for accused persons where consent is disputed.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I am aware of mens rea and agree that a potential strategy for any defense team in any rape case is that the defendant honestly believed he had consent.

This does not support your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendants beliefs.

Another strategy, seemingly common from rape cases I've seen reported, is to imply that the complainant intended to have sex, and did actually consent.

As pointed out, the "evidence" used by the defense to support these implications often has nothing to do with the defendant or his beliefs. In fact it would be impossible for the defendant to know anything about them, such as private text messages sent by the complainant to friends a day after the incident.

And your 100% focus on mens rea ignores the other essential.part of a crime, the actus reus. If a man intends to have sex with a woman regardless of whether she consents, but she does in fact consent, has a rape taken place? I assume you'd say no (as would I).

So the logic that mens rea is crucial therefore the "whole trial process" is about this aspect is false from first principles. The actus reus is also crucial and this is why the defense focus on the behaviour of the complainant in situations where the defendant has no opportunity to form beliefs about her.

You’d be wrong in assuming that because I can think of numerous examples where a defendant was found guilty of rape because the victim had no capacity to give consent. In fact there are numerous examples of circumstances where consent is vitiated laid out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

That aside, any evidence you’re referring to is presented in a case against the defendant. The defendants counsel may introduce evidence which will assist the defendant in their defence, and that includes all the scenarios you present above, as it goes to show that the complainant who is appearing as a witness for the prosecution is not a credible witness.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

From reading this thread I think women should be very, very nervous putting on any underwear other than a pair of bloomers, preferably with a chastity belt. Anything remotely sexy apparently gives a consent message and in court these knickers are enough to cause reasonable doubt. Nice get out of jail card for accused persons where consent is disputed.

Not at all. A persons choice of underwear only may be relevant when they accuse someone of rape.

That ‘argument’ btw is the same disingenuous nonsense as the kind of guy who says they have to have consent forms now or a girl could cry rape six months later. Frankly, it’s stupid.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’d be wrong in assuming that because I can think of numerous examples where a defendant was found guilty of rape because the victim had no capacity to give consent. In fact there are numerous examples of circumstances where consent is vitiated laid out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

I said in the case where she consents. Not a case where she is incapable of consent. Those examples in the act are situations where consent cannot be given. Nothing to do with what I said.

That aside, any evidence you’re referring to is presented in a case against the defendant. The defendants counsel may introduce evidence which will assist the defendant in their defence, and that includes all the scenarios you present above, as it goes to show that the complainant who is appearing as a witness for the prosecution is not a credible witness.

And whether the complainant is credible has no bearing on the beliefs of the defendant. You've just proved my point.

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not at all. A persons choice of underwear only may be relevant when they accuse someone of rape.

That ‘argument’ btw is the same disingenuous nonsense as the kind of guy who says they have to have consent forms now or a girl could cry rape six months later. Frankly, it’s stupid.

No 'may' about it. It was relevant in the Cork case. It is relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I said in the case where she consents. Not a case where she is incapable of consent. Those examples in the act are situations where consent cannot be given. Nothing to do with what I said.

Yes? She can give consent, and it can be determined later that consent was vitiated.

And whether the complainant is credible has no bearing on the beliefs of the defendant. You've just proved my point.

It has of course. The jury have to weigh the credibility of the defendants evidence against that of the complaing witness. If it can be demonstrated by the defence that the complainant has a credibility issue, then that lends weight to their case that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, has more merit.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

No 'may' about it. It was relevant in the Cork case. It is relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be.

It’s relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be if they’re accused by you of committing rape. If you don’t accuse someone of committing rape, what underwear you choose to wear is your own business.

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be if they’re accused by you of committing rape. If you don’t accuse someone of committing rape, what underwear you choose to wear is your own business.

We are discussing rape cases after all. And yes I get it - if you don't want your undies to feature in court, don't bring the case.

Sleeper12

Mrsmum wrote:

We are discussing rape cases after all. And yes I get it - if you don't want your undies to feature in court, don't bring the case.

Or go commando. Though that is obviously another invitation to sex according to some

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes? She can give consent, and it can be determined later that consent was vitiated.

Or it could be determined later that consent was given. In that case, does the intent to ignore consent mean the defendant committed rape?

It has of course. The jury have to weigh the credibility of the defendants evidence against that of the complaing witness. If it can be demonstrated by the defence that the complainant has a credibility issue, then that lends weight to their case that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, has more merit.

A credibility issue with the complainant would lend weight to a defendants account of the incident, not his belief regarding consent. Just as a credibility issue with a defendant lends weight to the complainants account.

What a complainant does a day later could have no impact on what the defendant believes at the time. It's physically impossible.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

We are discussing rape cases after all. And yes I get it - if you don't want your undies to feature in court, don't bring the case.

We’re discussing cases where a person is accused of rape. I’m not being nit picky when I make that distinction because while the defendant is on trial for committing rape, the reason they’re on trial is because they contend that they did not commit rape. They are presumed innocent until they are found guilty. That’s not the same thing from a persons perspective who has been raped. In any event, it wouldn’t be the complainant bringing a criminal prosecution against the accused.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Or it could be determined later that consent was given. In that case, does the intent to ignore consent mean the defendant committed rape?

Any outcome would depend upon the evidence presented in each case, so while you might be certain that consent was valid and assumed I would agree with you, I don’t, because I know of cases where consent was vitiated even when the victim considered their consent was valid.

A credibility issue with the complainant would lend weight to a defendants account of the incident, not his belief regarding consent. Just as a credibility issue with a defendant lends weight to the complainants account.

What a complainant does a day later could have no impact on what the defendant believes at the time. It's physically impossible.

That would depend upon the evidence given by the complainant, and what the complainant does a day later could well support evidence given by the defendant given in their defence, supporting their belief that the encounter was consensual.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any outcome would depend upon the evidence presented in each case, so while you might be certain that consent was valid and assumed I would agree with you, I don’t, because I know of cases where consent was vitiated even when the victim considered their consent was valid.

But you do accept that there are circumstances where someone genuinely consents with no vitiating circumstances surely?

In that case, can someone who intends to have sex with that person whether theynfove consent or not commit rape?

That would depend upon the evidence given by the complainant, and what the complainant does a day later could well support evidence given by the defendant given in their defence, supporting their belief that the encounter was consensual.

It might support the defendant account, it might support his current belief that the encounter was consensual, just as it.might support a jurors belief about the encounter.

It cannot, however, say anything about his beliefs at the time, and that's what is at question.

The reason the actions of a complainant after an incident are examined is with regards to actus reus, not mens rea.

Mens rea cannot be established from what anyone other than the defendant does after the incident.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

But you do accept that there are circumstances where someone genuinely consents with no vitiating circumstances surely?

In that case, can someone who intends to have sex with that person whether theynfove consent or not commit rape?

Round in circles we go. No, I told you already I don’t accept that. Put it to me 100 different ways if you like, my answer will still be the same - no.

It might support the defendant account, it might support his current belief that the encounter was consensual, just as it.might support a jurors belief about the encounter.

It cannot, however, say anything about his beliefs at the time, and that's what is at question.

The reason the actions of a complainant after an incident are examined is with regards to actus reus, not mens rea.

Mens rea cannot be established from what anyone other than the defendant does after the incident.

It can, as it can support whether or his honest belief was reasonable.

Anyway, I think at this point the thread has run it’s course for me anyway. We’re only going round in circles at this point and there isn’t anything left to discuss from my point of view.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Round in circles we go. No, I told you already I don’t accept that. Put it to me 100 different ways if you like, my answer will still be the same - no.

I didn't realise you'd answered no. So in that case you see that the defendant intents and belifs are irrelevant. Since the complainant freely consented it doesn't matter if he intended to ignore consent. Actus reus is just as crucial as mens rea and therefore the whole trial process is not centred around the defendant beliefs.

It can, as it can support whether or his honest belief was reasonable.

Anyway, I think at this point the thread has run it’s course for me anyway. We’re only going round in circles at this point and there isn’t anything left to discuss from my point of view.

Well technically it's not about whether his honest belief is reasonable it's whether he had an honest belief though I'm sure many jurors would apply some kind of reasonableness criteria when assessing whether he had an honest belief.

I fail to see how what a complainant did after a crime can say anything about what a defendant believed prior to or during that crime, unless the defendant can see into the future..... "Oh I honestly believed I had consent because my crystal ball told me that she'd send her friend a jokey text the day after"...... Doesn't really hold up.

AndrewJRenko

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

He was acquited, found not guilty, therefore he is innocent.

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

Venom

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

So the whole innocent until proven guilty stuff those pesky legal types tend to make a big deal about is all bs?

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

He was acquitted and found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent.

Yeah but unfortunately he walks out of there an innocent man as far as this case is concerned.

I heard about this case while I was driving to work. As a dog walker. Wearing jeans that are too big for me, an old jumper I inherited from a friend, covered in dog slobber and mud, and underneath wearing a thong with a lace front.

So I was obviously intending to meet a man while walking dogs and have a bit of sex. Any man at all. The underpants I took out of my knicker drawer in the morning clearly shows my intent.