Rape Victim Abused and Threatened in Court

Quantum Erasure

was "you're going to pay for this" the extent of the threat, or was there more?

SusieBlue

Ellianna Miniature Buttermilk wrote: »

But that’s not what you were calling for. You were aghast at how this was allowed to happen and how the Gardai didn’t do anything.

I don't think that finding it appalling that supporters of a convicted rapist threatened the victim in court is a particularly contrary position to take.
I don't think this should be allowed to happen and I'm happy the Gardaí are now investigating it.
I'm unclear as to why you find any of this confusing?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't think that finding it appalling that supporters of a convicted rapist threatened the victim in court is a particularly contrary position to take.
I don't think this should be allowed to happen and I'm happy the Gardaí are now investigating it.
I'm unclear as to why you find any of this confusing?

I think it's more the case of wanting them to be arrested before any formal complaint was made.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's more the case of wanting them to be arrested before any formal complaint was made.

I don't think a complaint should be necessary, surely there were Gardaí in the courtroom who witnessed what happened?It doesn't matter that the court wasn't in session, it isn't the point.
Threatening a victim should be treated as contempt of court.
Again, I'm failing to see what's contrary about that.

For what its worth, if the defendant had been found not guilty, and the victims supporters threatened him, I'd be of the same opinion. It just isn't ok in a civilised country for things like that to occur in our courts.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't think a complaint should be necessary, surely there were Gardaí in the courtroom who witnessed what happened?

Possibly. I don't know. I haven't seen any articles stating that there were either Gardai or court officials in the court room when it happened.

And I will never support automatic assumption of guilt. This is why we have a system of investigation and judgement through the law.

It doesn't matter that the court wasn't in session, it isn't the point.
Threatening a victim should be treated as contempt of court.

You say that the court not being in session isn't the point and then use the contempt of court as a reason... Court happens when the Judge/clerk announces that the court is in session. Once the judge is not in the courtroom, it reverts to a room. It's the judges presence that's important. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

Threatening anyone is wrong... But we should be careful in how we deal with it.

For what its worth, if the defendant had been found not guilty, and the victims supporters threatened him, I'd be of the same opinion. It just isn't ok in a civilised country for things like that to occur in our courts.

And I agree with you... Threats shouldn't be tolerated. At the same time though, they shouldn't be blown pout of proportion by people who weren't even there, or by activists with an agenda to push. I do believe that victims should formally submit for investigations of possible crimes. It's the same reason I don't like the metoo/IBeilieveHer movements, which seek to avoid making it official, and revert to mob justice/judgement.

The emphasis should be to always make something official so that the Gardai can investigate, and the details entered into official statistical reports, so we can use them in our threads.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Possibly. I don't know. I haven't seen any articles stating that there were either Gardai or court officials in the court room when it happened.

And I will never support automatic assumption of guilt. This is why we have a system of investigation and judgement through the law.

There are always Gardaí present in court. What has automatic assumption of guilt got to do with anything? You are being contrary for the sake of it now, and its very dishonest.

You say that the court not being in session isn't the point and then use the contempt of court as a reason... Court happens when the Judge/clerk announces that the court is in session. Once the judge is not in the courtroom, it reverts to a room. It's the judges presence that's important. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

Threatening anyone is wrong... But we should be careful in how we deal with it.

Again, context is what's important here. Threatening a victim in a court of law, whether there is a judge present or not, should be a punishable offence. If it cannot be treated as contempt, it should be a public order offence.
That is what I am getting at. Again, not an unreasonable position to take.

And I agree with you... Threats shouldn't be tolerated. At the same time though, they shouldn't be blown pout of proportion by people who weren't even there, or by activists with an agenda to push. I do believe that victims should formally submit for investigations of possible crimes. It's the same reason I don't like the metoo/IBeilieveHer movements, which seek to avoid making it official, and revert to mob justice/judgement.

The emphasis should be to always make something official so that the Gardai can investigate, and the details entered into official statistical reports, so we can use them in our threads.

And by the same logic, they also shouldn't be dismissed or downplayed by someone who wasn't even there.
The only one who seems to be pushing an agenda here is you, you are tying yourself up in knots trying to justify what happened and going to great lengths to play devils advocate.
You were all but saying there was nothing to see here at the start of the thread, now you've reverted to faux concern about following legal procedures and policies. Its so transparent.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

There are always Gardaí present in court. What has automatic assumption of guilt got to do with anything? You are being contrary for the sake of it now, and its very dishonest.

There are always Gardai present immediately before, and during a court case. Don't know about immediately afterwards once the prisoner is removed. It would also depend on the time of day and the list of cases scheduled.

As for being contrary for the sake of it... No. I just don't agree with you, and I refuse to knuckle to you for convenience. It's not dishonest, and honestly :rolleyes:, You're being rather offensive. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't quote me and post your opinion.

Again, context is what's important here. Threatening a victim in a court of law, whether there is a judge present or not, should be a punishable offence. If it cannot be treated as contempt, it should be a public order offence.
That is what I am getting at. Again, not an unreasonable position to take.

Should be. Should be. Forget it. I'm repeating myself, and you're simply repeating yourself with different words. You obviously don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you..

You were all but saying there was nothing to see here at the start of the thread, now you've reverted to faux concern about following legal procedures and policies. Its so transparent.

It's transparent because you created the scenario. My post was pretty damn clear as to what I was checking... just as I've been consistent in pushing that such "claims" be made official. And, I don't particularly enjoy accusations being thrown my way... simply because you can't argue your points effectively.

Candamir

Victims don’t have to make a complaint in order for a crime to have taken place, or for the Gardai to start an investigation.
In fact, in the article linked at the beginning of the thread the Gardai said they would investigate even if a complaint from the victim wasn’t received.

I’m a bit aghast that anyone would think threatening a victim of rape in a court room (even if it was ‘only’ a verbal an ‘not specific’ threat) is not something to be condemned outright.

Candamir

Candamir wrote: »

Victims don’t have to make a complaint in order for a crime to have taken place, or for the Gardai to start an investigation.
In fact, in the article linked at the beginning of the thread the Gardai said they would investigate even if a complaint from the victim wasn’t received.
.

Ahh missed that part. Good to know. Thanks.

Sleeper12

It is terrible & distressing for the victim but I think this type behaviour happens more often than some people think. The defendants side, rarely agree with the verdict. Just look at how the country is still split about the Belfast rape trial even though there a not guilty virdict.

osarusan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It is terrible & distressing for the victim but I think this type behaviour happens more often than some people think.

Certainly, split opinions about verdicts are quite common, but shouting obscenities and threats in the courtroom itself is thankfully rare (and thankfully, actionable).

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh missed that part. Good to know. Thanks.

You've missed the point of the whole thread, ie, if the Gardai witness a crime, should they not be making an arrest.

Sleeper12

osarusan wrote:

Certainly, split opinions about verdicts are quite common, but shouting obscenities and threats in the courtroom itself is thankfully rare (and thankfully, actionable).

They would happen to some extent at least once a year in some court in Ireland. Its not totally unheard of is my point

anewme

anewme wrote: »

You've missed the point of the whole thread, ie, if the Gardai witness a crime, should they not be making an arrest.

No, they should investigate and if the law has been broken, then an arrest should be made.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they should investigate and if the law has been broken, then an arrest should be made.

Yes, absolutely, of course, but making threats against a person is a crime. A crime that should be taken serious, irrespective if the victim makes a complaint or not. That has always been the case. I am not sure where your understanding that the person has to make a complaint. In this case, there were numerous witnesses, so will be easy to verify exactly what was said.

Threats which you don't deem serious, ie, vague threats, but some of us differ on what a vague threat is then.

I suppose none of us were there and the Gardai were ...but the reports seemed to use verbatim of the Courtroom.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

Yes, absolutely, of course, but making threats against a person is a crime. A crime that should be taken serious, irrespective if the victim makes a complaint or not. That has always been the case. I am not sure where your understanding that the person has to make a complaint. In this case, there were numerous witnesses, so will be easy to verify exactly what was said.

Threats which you don't seem serious, ie, vague threats, but some of us differ on what a vague threat is then.

I suppose none of us were there and the Gardai were ...but the reports seemed to use verbatim of the Courtroom.

Then we're in agreement. Investigation, then arrest. Not arrest first. But threats, any threats should be taken seriously.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

There are always Gardaí present in court. What has automatic assumption of guilt got to do with anything? You are being contrary for the sake of it now, and its very dishonest.

It's most likely that this case was in camera so only Gardai involved in the case would be allowed in the court. It's likely the other people who shouted were also involved in the case in some way or they wouldn't be allowed in either.
For my reading of things there was no threat made. People who were upset at the verdict and sentencing shouted out. They may believe that she told lies be and are entitled to hold that opinion.
'You'll pay for this' could mean Karma will get you or if a person is religious that you'll end up in hell or punished some way by God.

SusieBlue wrote:

Again, context is what's important here. Threatening a victim in a court of law, whether there is a judge present or not, should be a punishable offence. If it cannot be treated as contempt, it should be a public order offence. That is what I am getting at. Again, not an unreasonable position to take.

There was no threat. Nobody made any statement or comment which could be taken as intent to harm the victim in this case

osarusan

eagle eye wrote: »

'You'll pay for this' could mean Karma will get you or if a person is religious that you'll end up in hell or punished some way by God.

This is the second time I've seen this on the thread, and it's just ridiculous.

If somebody shouted 'You're a dead man' at the defendant at the end of a trial involving a paedophile (for example), do we really think they are making some existential comment about how we are all eventually dead, when you think about it.

It's a threat, plain and simple, same as the 'You'll pay for this' is a threat.

It's one think to discuss whether it's a genuine threat or not, but to suggest that it's not a threat but actually a reference to karma, or god, or old age/disease, is laughable.

SusieBlue

eagle eye wrote: »

It's most likely that this case was in camera so only Gardai involved in the case would be allowed in the court. It's likely the other people who shouted were also involved in the case in some way or they wouldn't be allowed in either.
For my reading of things there was no threat made. People who were upset at the verdict and sentencing shouted out. They may believe that she told lies be and are entitled to hold that opinion.
'You'll pay for this' could mean Karma will get you or if a person is religious that you'll end up in hell or punished some way by God.


There was no threat. Nobody made any statement or comment which case ukd be taken as intent to harm the victim in this case.

Absolute BS of the highest order. Supporters of a convicted rapist say "you'll pay for this" to the rapists victim, and that isn't to be perceived as a threat?
What is it then?

I don't care what they believe to be lies, they can believe whatever they want, but that liberty does not extend to being fair game to threaten and intimidate a victim. Its completely unacceptable.
This whataboutery of attempting to imply the threat actually meant something completely innocent & inoccuous is absolutely ridiculous.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

This is the second time I've seen this on the thread, and it's just ridiculous.

If somebody shouted 'You're a dead man' at the end of a trial involving a paedophile (for example), do we really think they are making some existential comment about how we are all eventually dead really.

It's a threat, plain and simple, same as the 'You'll pay for this' is a threat.

It's one think to discuss whether it's a genuine threat or not, but to suggest that it's not a threat but actually a reference to karma, or god, or old age/disease, is laughable.

Yet, you changed the threat to something more direct and obviously dangerous. Why? because you know that "you'll pay for this" is vague. It lacks direct threat without some accompanying language or gestures.

It's still a threat, but it's about the scale of the threat. People make emotional outbursts. That has to be factored into such situations. Lacking extra information to show an intent to cause harm, it's simply a vague emotional statement. Still a threat to be investigated, but not comparable with "You're a dead man".

eagle eye

osarusan wrote:

If somebody shouted 'You're a dead man' at the defendant at the end of a trial involving a paedophile (for example), do we really think they are making some existential comment about how we are all eventually dead, when you think about it.

No said your a 'dead man(or woman)'.
That's a whole different thing.

One eyed Jack

anewme wrote: »

Yes, absolutely, of course, but making threats against a person is a crime. A crime that should be taken serious, irrespective if the victim makes a complaint or not. That has always been the case. I am not sure where your understanding that the person has to make a complaint. In this case, there were numerous witnesses, so will be easy to verify exactly what was said.

Threats which you don't deem serious, ie, vague threats, but some of us differ on what a vague threat is then.

I suppose none of us were there and the Gardai were ...but the reports seemed to use verbatim of the Courtroom.

And because we all differ on whether a threat rises to the level of whether it should be taken seriously or not, it should be left up to the Gardaí who were present at the time to determine whether or not an investigation and arrest is warranted. Most of the time it’s simply not warranted, it’s understood that outbursts like these which are not preventable (and we have seen examples of it in a couple of high profile cases in the media where people have made outbursts from the public gallery), are because emotions are running high.

For Ms. Saidlear to use this as particular case as an example of an issue that she is trying to raise placed an undue amount of focus on this particular case and in my view it was just another example of her irresponsible attitude towards the people she claims to be advocating for. She has form for making mountains out of molehills -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


That sort of over-reaction is simply uncalled for and does nothing in my view to serve the administration of justice. The Gardaí exist to serve the public, and it is not necessary nor should it be expected of them to arrest people who make emotional outbursts in court which, while they are undoubtedly threats and intimidating behaviour, do not immediately give the Gardaí cause for concern. It’s simply playing petty politics to expect Gardaí to intervene and to arrest people on the basis of calls from the public on social media for them to do so.

The same point could have been made, as you did when you suggested that we need to speak out when we see behaviours like this (I disagree, I’d still prefer that the authorities were trusted by the public to know what course of action were necessary rather than members of the public imagining they had the authority to take the law into their own hands), without reference to a specific case. It’s as though some people haven’t learned that social media mob justice is just not a good idea and shouldn’t be encouraged by anyone, let alone someone in as influential and responsible a position as Ms. Saidlear or Ruth Coppinger, before she failed to be re-elected to the Dail at least.

anewme

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And because we all differ on whether a threat rises to the level of whether it should be taken seriously or not, it should be left up to the Gardaí who were present at the time to determine whether or not an investigation and arrest is warranted. Most of the time it’s simply not warranted, it’s understood that outbursts like these which are not preventable (and we have seen examples of it in a couple of high profile cases in the media where people have made outbursts from the public gallery), are because emotions are running high.

For Ms. Saidlear to use this as particular case as an example of an issue that she is trying to raise placed an undue amount of focus on this particular case and in my view it was just another example of her irresponsible attitude towards the people she claims to be advocating for. She has form for making mountains out of molehills -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


That sort of over-reaction is simply uncalled for and does nothing in my view to serve the administration of justice. The Gardaí exist to serve the public, and it is not necessary nor should it be expected of them to arrest people who make emotional outbursts in court which, while they are undoubtedly threats and intimidating behaviour, do not immediately give the Gardaí cause for concern. It’s simply playing petty politics to expect Gardaí to intervene and to arrest people on the basis of calls from the public on social media for them to do so.

The same point could have been made, as you did when you suggested that we need to speak out when we see behaviours like this (I disagree, I’d still prefer that the authorities were trusted by the public to know what course of action were necessary rather than members of the public imagining they had the authority to take the law into their own hands), without reference to a specific case. It’s as though some people haven’t learned that social media mob justice is just not a good idea and shouldn’t be encouraged by anyone, let alone someone in as influential and responsible a position as Ms. Saidlear or Ruth Coppinger, before she failed to be re-elected to the Dail at least.

You write essays as above trying bamboozle people. It’s better kept simple and to the facts of the case.

In this instance, it can be summed up that you believe people are making mountains out of molehills.I don’t believe that to be the case. That’s it.

There does not need to be paragraphs and essays written back and forth on it. It is what it is. People can make their own stand accordingly.

One eyed Jack

anewme wrote: »

You write essays as above trying bamboozle people. It’s better kept simple and to the facts of the case.

I’ll stick to the facts then and keep it really simple -

Encouraging people to interfere with the judicial process is the easiest way a person can find themselves in contempt of court.

Writing to your local TDs is a complete waste of time as TDs have no powers to interfere with the judicial process either due to the principle of the separation of powers between Government, the State and the Judiciary.

Self-righteousness like that on display from Ms. Saidlear and Ms. Coppinger does nobody any favours, especially when they don’t have all the facts in any case. I can’t see what good actually comes of encouraging anyone to interfere with the judicial process.

Faugheen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Self-righteousness like that on display from Ms. Saidlear and Ms. Coppinger does nobody any favours, especially when they don’t have all the facts in any case. I can’t see what good actually comes of encouraging anyone to interfere with the judicial process.

Scumbaggery like threatening a woman after two men were found guilty of raping her in the court room does nobody any good either but you have no issue dismissing that as ‘a molehill’.

One eyed Jack

Faugheen wrote: »

Scumbaggery like threatening a woman after two men were found guilty of raping her in the court room does nobody any good either but you have no issue dismissing that as ‘a molehill’.

Feel better now for taking what I said out of context?

Well done.

Faugheen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feel better now for taking what I said out of context?

Well done.

I’m not taking anything out of context at all.

Your primary concern is what Cliona Sadlier said (making a mountain out of a molehill) rather than the person who was threatened after her rapists were put away. There’s absolutely nothing I am taking out of context here.

One eyed Jack

Faugheen wrote: »

I’m not taking anything out of context at all.

Your primary concern is what Cliona Sadlier said (making a mountain out of a molehill) rather than the person who was threatened after her rapists were put away. There’s absolutely nothing I am taking out of context here.

You did take what I said out of context, and Ms. Saidlear isn’t my primary concern at all. That’s why from my very first post in this thread I said that as an aside, Cliona Saidlear is a dose - because she uses cases like this as an opportunity to whip up hysteria on social media and encourage people to interfere with the judicial process, which actually leads to my primary concern where such actions can focus unwanted public attention on the victims in these cases, and have the secondary effect of prejudicing a defendants right to a fair trial -


Rape trial nearly collapsed after NI politician's tweet

Quantum Erasure

Faugheen wrote: »

Your primary concern is what Cliona Sadlier said (making a mountain out of a molehill) rather than the person who was threatened

"Sex education around sexual violence is really about tools to help people around inappropriate behaviour and recognising behaviour in themselves," said Dr Saidlear.

"It has shifted that focus from stranger danger and that dirty-old-man kind of image we have.

"We really need to say that young boys can also be a danger to young girls, it isn't all just fun."

that seems fair enough, but I remember the 'white van' scares when I was in school, and every white van that passed down the road sent the school into a panic, imagine being that on edge, every hour of every day that you're in school...

eagle eye

You need to put yourself in the shoes of friends and family of the convicted man. It's not surprising that they would believe him if he said he didn't commit the crime. The whole process is quite an ordeal for relatives and friends of an accused person.
If/when he gets found guilty and then sentenced it's a tough time for them and if they believe him they think she is lying and it's often the case that their frustration with the whole process leads to them castigating the victim.
If you can't understand that then your opinion is worthless.
You gotta be able to see both sides to form a sensible opinion.