RTÉ journo given 15months for sexually assaulting woman as she slept

I have explained my stance. I have the same issue with other unfounded armchair diagnoses.

PTSD is sadly an overused term.

On the one hand your saying I'm splitting hairs and in the next paragraph you are saying that whether a victim believes they were sexually assaulted depends on the weight of evidence and the testimony of both. The law was broken here but the circumstances surronding the entire encounter were not taken into account by the judge when it came to sentencing. What sentence would be given to a man who climbed into bed with a complete stranger he had never met and did as this man did? how would that mans intentions and motives be different? He would surely know that the woman does not consent given they have never met and he is forcing himself on her. Would he get 2 years for groping her breasts and stopping immediatley when she said no? This man had consensual sexual foreplay the night before it was recorded in evidence that sex was left open for the morning. He beleived she consented to what he was doing he made a split second decision to wake her with foreplay she had consented to the night before, Id imagine thats why he did not plead guilty.. that was a mistaken belief on his part, he did not pin her down or force himself on her. He was trying to wake her to have consensual sex with her this was also recorded in evidence he had no intention to rape or force himself on her there is no question of this and the evidence backs this up he immediately stopped when she told him to. Had he not touched her breasts but tapped her head and woke her up would he be charged with common assault not sexual assault?

What is clear is that no matter what people believe the law is broken everytime someone initiates sex with a sleeping partner. This happens and will continue to happen because you cant consent when you are asleep. Thats the law regardless of the testimony of either the victim or the perpetrator. He is a very unlucky man, 99/100 he ends up fooling around not getting 15 months in prison. There has not been a case reported like this before that I can remember. It sets a precedent for the future though sex and sexual encounters.

There are the men who know their victim does not consent and presumably dont care whether they do or not, their are men who break into houses with the intention of sexually assalting and raping women. These are scum.

I don't think anyone is being nasty, a bit blunt and rough in their analyses, yes, but I don't think anyone wants to come across as hurting this woman with their views on this.

Compromise is what is needed: I just cannot fathom how the impact statement ties into what we know happened in that moment, as well as what happened before and after the moment. It is just far too intense a statement from the woman for me to take/believe.

I am not saying she wasn't telling the truth. All of it could be true: But the key is, was this act/man responsible for all of it? I really find it hard to believe that this man and his act that night caused all this claimed suffering!

Ok, so the prison sentence is justified because he was a stupid fool. We got ya now......

We all know he verified what happened.

That doesn't mean he then believes that he should have a conviction and possible jail term for it, and be labelled a sex offender; hence he decided that he pleads not guilty to a charge of sexual assault, because he believed that what he did was not sexual assault (in a way that was being portrayed by her and the justice system).

He was foolish, I guess for being too honest, and he has been hung badly for it. There was on need whatsoever to jail this man for this moment in time. No need.

You, like some other posters here are just far too stiff, and incapable of seeing common sense and reason.

Would you call someone who pinches someone's bum in a nightclub a fool for pleading not guilty to sexual assault, even if he admitted he pinched a bum? It's sexual assault, isn't it?

If you think she believed the defence was arrogant is it not possible she thought to teach them a lesson?

And, even if all this was real and she did suffer all this BECAUSE of this one act, does it still mean the man should be jailed?

Are we going down this road now where we lock up men for some very low level "sexual assault" cases because the plaintiff has a very detailed and traumatic impact statement?

Where is the line drawn? Man pinches bottom on a bus/niteclub......woman presses charges for sexual assault and man convicted. Impact statement lays it on very thick......jail him?

Everyone is entitled to a defence, it's a basic human right.

But when I read about this case first I could not believe as soon as the book of evidence was served that a guilty plea and a signing up for a consent education course was not the advice given to the accused, accompanied by how crass as it sounds monetary compensation. He 100% would not be facing a custodial sentence right now.

Maybe it was and it was the accused who went solo, although reading some of the defence barristers mitigation, i.e they weren't blood relatives 😏 I have my doubts he just didn't hire fúcking clowns.

Either way under no circumstance should you enter an Irish Judges court room with presumptions laden in arrogance. It is the one thing guaranteed to rise them.

Ok define on top of her? Was he lying flat on top of her or simply sitting on her legs and leaning over? Given the action described I find it hard to believe he was lying flat on top of her. If someone was lying flat on top of you face to face well then I can could possibly see why she would've got a fright. Perspective is key here

He admitted to sexual assault and you are struggling as to why he should have plead guilty to sexual assault?

The main reason was to keep him out of prison, I mean the sex offenders list is a horrible thing to be on, but your liberty is essentially all you have at the end of the day.

The law is explained clearly to the Jury, now without going down "jury nullification" myths, how on what is defined under law could they possibly return a not guilty verdict?

Unless his legal team were dangerously stupid, they know this. This trial can't change the written law, certainly not at the time of trial.

He rolled the dice, he lost, badly.

He has been beyond "unlucky", but he has contributed to his lack of luck all along the way.

But when I read about this case first I could not believe as soon as the book of evidence was served that a guilty plea and a signing up for a consent education course was not the advice given to the accused, accompanied by how crass as it sounds monetary compensation. He 100% would not be facing a custodial sentence right now.

But as @walshb mentioned he could have faced jail and labelled a sex offender.

Hold on, he admitted to sexual assault, or he said what he did? Saying what you did doesn't mean you are automatically admitting to a charge of sexual assault

Again: pinch on bum can be seen as sexual assault. Do you think it is reasonable/logical that a man will admit to sexual assault and plead guilty to sexual assault in a court for a pinch of a bum?

There is detail here that seems to be lost: He told his side. This then resulted in him being charged with sexual assault. That does not mean he admitted to sexual assault. The charge was sexual assault.

Just because you are charged with a crime, in this case, sexual assault, does not mean you have to agree with the charge.