This doesn’t seem to be getting the coverage it should due to all the Brexit shenanigans going on – it’s pretty appalling – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46207304

Another case of the victim ‘asking for it’ apparently.

In the trial, the defence lawyer told the jury: “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.

The 27-year-old man was found not guilty of rape shortly afterwards.”

The news report I saw on France 24 was suggesting that the jury accepted that the choice of underwear worn implied consent!!

There may be more to the not guilty verdict than that comment, but even so!

I saw this too – shocking that they were allowed away with that in court. Surely  the judge can step in and stop things…

It’s an utterly abhorrent state of affairs. I’m firmly in the ”shouldnt even have been allowed to be mentioned in court’ camp.

This is absolutely awful, no means no, whatever you are wearing and even if that is wearing nothing at all, the defence and the jury should be taken to task over this.

It appears from the original media reporting that there is more to the verdict than the thong incident however one can see how it may have contributed to the outcome.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html

It is disgusting that the barrister was allowed to say what she said. For some reason, rightly or wrongly, the fact that it was a female barrister saying it makes it even worse in my eyes. If it was the UK, it would not be allowed I believe however Ireland has some way to go with what is appropriate for a barrister to say in court. In my experience it also has some way to go in the areas of consent and victim blaming.

That really is appalling and can cause more harm that only that case.

It’s that sort of shit that makes victim blaming such a sore subject in sex crimes.  We (Cardiff) have a massive student population, so every Sept the Police like to give advice to Students coming to live here, well mostly to let them know, if they didn’t already that Cardiff isn’t a crime free utopia.

We do sadly have Sex Pests and Rapists living amongst us, so it’s probably advisable not to get completely blind drunk and collapse in some dark back alley, or stager back through the many small lanes that link the Student areas with the City Centre, not to get into unlicensed taxis at 4am etc, it’s all good, sensible advice, but every years there’s a massive backlash from people screaming “victim blaming” because of shit like the case above and the message gets diluted.

Erm, well the story linked by the OP is all about the outcry and protests that that rape trial provoked.

So, good that it did that and wasn’t just swept under the carpet, or indeed buried under all the Brexit bollocks.

Ask yourself what’s more likely. A news organisation selectively reporting the facts to create a sensational story that fits their political bias and generates clicks…

Or a court full of professionals in evaluating evidence decided something was pertinent. And a jury, having heard the full facts, took very little time to acquit.

There has to have been a crime to have a victim. The jury clearly didn’t believe the “victim”.

We are the angry mob, but we’re also easily swayed.

In that case, can someone in the legal profession explain where that evidence could be even remotely pertinent? Other than for DNA tests, whereby  the physical appearance is irrelevant? Because I can’t even fathom one at the moment.Regardless of the outcome.

The jury clearly didn’t believe the “victim”.

In my opinion that statement is worse than the implication by the barrister that anyone wearing “skimpy” underwear does not need to provide consent.  Which is quite special.

Most not-guilty verdicts in rape trials are not the jury saying they don’t believe the complainer (which implies the complainer has made up a false allegation – a very rare occurance) but that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of the case were proven.  The system is intentionally, and rightly, biased in favour of the accused, with the state having the obligation to prove the case.

The mistaken belief that juries aquitting an accused person are saying the complainer was lying is part of the reason real victims don’t come forward.

“The mistaken belief that juries aquitting an accused person are saying the complainer was lying is part of the reason real victims don’t come forward.”

Or of course the guy could have just as likely have been innocent?

bazzer – of course – and there are many ways to be innocent: consent, reasonably belief of consent, the offence did not happen, it wasn’t you etc.  The point is that doesn’t add up to the jury deciding the alleged victim was lying – although sometimes they will.  I’d suggest, although nobody knows what juries think, that it is far less often that they think the complainer is lying – and so not “just as likely”.

Based on my admittedly small sample size of being a juror in an attempted murder trial and a rape trial(with multiple vitcims) there was one very obvious difference in how the jury at large treated the cases.

In the attempted murder case the jury acted like the accused was on trial, in the rape case it was very much the victims that were on trial.

The mistaken belief that juries aquitting an accused person are saying the complainer was lying is part of the reason real victims don’t come forward.

That’s always the elephant in the room and it isn’t ever really talked about. It is far more simply explained as being that the accuser isn’t in a position to determine whether what happened was ‘rape’  or not, that can only be determined by the jury. the accuser is only in a position to say what happened.

The accuser can still be firmly of the beliief that it was rape and the accused can still be found not guilty without having to conclude that the accuser must therefore have been lying; they were simply mistaken (although that is a desperately horrible misaprehension to be under).

I can’t think of many other instances (or indeed any) where the definition of whether a crime was committed can boil down to what the person accused of committing it believed they were doing, or should reasonably have been expected to believe.

“I can’t think of many other instances (or indeed any) where the definition of whether a crime was committed can boil down to what the person accused of committing it believed they were doing, or should reasonably have been expected to believe.”

Try theft. Or GBH with intent. Or murder. Or public order. Or indecent exposure. Or, well, pretty much all crimes except tax, motoring and not having a train ticket.

In the trial, the defence lawyer told the jury: “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.

When I saw this I wondered why there was not counter statement saying the accused had trousers on with a zip at the front so must have been planning to expose himself or the like. It’s a joke that this is still being used to influence any jury anywhere and that the lawyer is allowed to say it without reprimand.

You have absolutely no idea what the context was. There may have been a text message from the alleged victim to the alleged attacker saying “I’m wearing my most sexy knickers tonight and I can’t wait for you to rip them off and take me”. In which case they would most definitely have been relevant.

Alternatively she may have said to the Garda, “I had no intention of having sex, I was wearing my granny pants and I’d die of embarrassment if a boy saw me in those”.

Given that the male seems to have been so pissed he couldn’t get an erection, the construction of undergarments may even have been crucial to whether penetration was even possible. The prosecution case may have been that they were ripped, and presenting the undamaged items would have killed that accusation.

All unlikely I grant you but not implausible as Mr. Allan’s acquittal showed. Unless you were in the courtroom you don’t know. Which is why we have judges and not trial by tabloid newspaper or Internet message board.

Victim’s evidence needs to be challenged, as Ms Costin, Ms Skinner and Ms Palmer amply demonstrate, and whilst we have adversarial justice it has to be the defense that does it, and has to do it ruthlessly or we will get wrongful convictions.

Try theft. Or GBH with intent. Or murder.

Nit quite. You can’t take something that’s not yours and then claim you didn’t know it wasn’t yours. The act is a crime irrespective of what the perpetrator thought. Same with GBH and murder, although OK you can please maslaughter and the difference is indeed intent to some extent. But taking a persons life is still a crime irrespective of what was in your head at the time.

Unless you run a defence based on self defence which may depend on a state of mind

Theft: dishonesty appropriates property … with the intention of …

GBH with intent: wound or cause grevious bodily harm to any person with intent …

Manslaughter: “not to be convicted even if his belief was unreasonable” and “he must be judged according to his mistaken view of the facts”. Both of those the reason why it’s legal to shoot Brazilian electricians or armed robbers with chair legs if you honestly believe them to have bombs or guns.

Geetee – google “mens rea”.