Ireland - the new Afghanistan?

Alleged rape victim arrested in Ireland for refusal to testify. Eastern European woman was told by judge to stand in front of three accused and point out her alleged assailants

A woman who alleged that she was the victim of a gang rape in the Republic of Ireland has been arrested and temporarily imprisoned after refusing to give evidence against the three men accused of assaulting her.

The men, who have not been named for legal reasons, were acquitted last week of rape, false imprisonment and assault. But campaigners have condemned the treatment of the woman, who was told by the judge, Mr Justice Paul Carney, to stand directly in front of the three accused and point out her alleged assailants.

The woman, who is from eastern Europe, became so distressed that lawyers later complained they had feared she might collapse in court. When she failed to appear in court the next day, a warrant was issued for her arrest.

Police officers found the woman at her home, where she had apparently attempted suicide, but after receiving medical treatment she was arrested and spent a day in the jail cells of Dublin's Four Courts.

Reporting restrictions meant that the woman's arrest could not be made public during the trial for fear of prejudicing the proceedings.

Sources in the Garda Síochána stressed this weekend that the case was still "listed" in the Dublin courts and the judge involved could order a retrial. That, however, hinges on whether the woman is prepared to testify again.

In issuing the warrant for the woman's arrest Carney indicated that there could be a retrial. He said: "If she has to spend a long time in prison herself waiting for a retrial that's her fault."

The first of the accused, a 28-year-old man, lived in the same house as the woman and her partner. He was alleged to have falsely imprisoned the woman, raped her and assaulted her and her partner, causing them harm.

The second man, a 20-year-old, was accused of assaulting the couple, causing them harm, falsely imprisoning the woman and raping her. The third man, also 20, was accused of rape. The trial heard that the alleged attacks took place from 15-19 November 2010. The men, who are also from eastern Europe, pleaded not guilty on all counts.

All three were accused of laughing while the woman was allegedly pinned to the floor and had vodka poured over her during the rape. During the trial the first of the accused admitted having sex with the woman but denied it was rape.

He told the court: "Maybe I misread her behaviour. I was drunk." At the time the woman was three months pregnant.

The case has provoked demands for a major overhaul of the way rape trials are conducted. Ellen O'Malley of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre said the legal process made complainants "feel they are the ones on trial". She said Ireland had one of Europe's highest rates for rape cases collapsing.

"One of the main reasons for this high fallout rate is because complainants decide not to put themselves through what they say is a re-victimising experience."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_______________________________________________________________________
Came across this when reading the news this morning, and was appauled. Is this how we treat (alleged) rape victims now? Also have to wonder if it would have happened were the woman of Irish birth, as opposed to Eastern European...

The men were found innocent by the jury in this case. They had spent time in custody awaiting trial and were being denied their right to clear their names in court by cross examining the 'victim', an equally important right than that of the sensitive treatment of a an alleged rape victim.

That might sound harsh and of course measures should be in place to make the trial less of an ordeal for any alleged victim. However, the ordeal of being accused of a crime you have not committed is as bad. Protections for the victim cannot be allowed to go too far.

I appreciate what you are saying JS, but I think that it is too much to expect a woman who claims she has been raped to then be cross examined by the accused, or even to have to identify the accused in court.

The fear/shame/humiliation felt by many victims of such a crime is often said to be a strong reason why many cases never go to court, and to have that relived, albeit verbally, in court is not acceptable. That the men were ultimately found 'not guilty' does not mean that the process wasn't badly flawed.

If as reported the woman was treated disgracefully. The state brought the case and should have pursued with the evidence that justified the charges. The woman whatever, about guilty or innocence for those charged should not have been asked to stand in front of them and identify.

Thomas Clarke wrote:I appreciate what you are saying JS, but I think that it is too much to expect a woman who claims she has been raped to then be cross examined by the accused, or even to have to identify the accused in court.

The fear/shame/humiliation felt by many victims of such a crime is often said to be a strong reason why many cases never go to court, and to have that relived, albeit verbally, in court is not acceptable. That the men were ultimately found 'not guilty' does not mean that the process wasn't badly flawed.

The right to face your accuser in court is seen as a vital element of any criminal trial. I think only where children are involved is video evidence allowed. The defence need to have the right to cross examine an accuser, evidence by video or by written statement just isn't acceptable.
I fear too many people jump to conclusions when they read a report such as this, automatically label the three men as rapists and judge the situation based on that premise.

The judge in this case has a reputation for handing out very severe sentences for violent crime. It appears he holds up the right of a fair trial for the accused with equal severity.

I don't mean to sound callous and a certain degree of compassion is required but that can't undermine the right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty. I think what is required is better assistance for the victim. They need to have separate legal representation because as it stands they are treated simply as a witness to the crime.

JS, if video/written evidence is permissable for children, then why not for alleged rape victims? And I still fail to see why the woman had to stand in court to 'point out' the people she said attacked her - is that really necessary?

The trouble with treating a woman like this is, aside from the further distress it will bring to someone who has been raped, it will also discourage many others from bringing similar charges.

Thomas Clarke wrote:JS, if video/written evidence is permissable for children, then why not for alleged rape victims? And I still fail to see why the woman had to stand in court to 'point out' the people she said attacked her - is that really necessary?

The trouble with treating a woman like this is, aside from the further distress it will bring to someone who has been raped, it will also discourage many others from bringing similar charges.

I don't think the treatment of children as witnesses in sexual assault cases is comparable with the treatment of adults.

I can't say with complete certainty but my understanding is that new court rooms are designed so the accused persons are in a dock which is out of view of the person in the witness box. It looks like there was some confusion as to the person the woman was attempting to identify in one part of the testimony and the judge asked her to point him out.. You would imagine this could have been done by showing her photos and it does reflect badly that the judge chose to deal with it as he did.

The treatment of rape victims in court is a very sensitive issue and both pro-victim groups and those battling for the rights of an accused have equally persuasive arguments. It's a matter of finding a balance because unfortunately the greater the protection of the victim the weaker the defence case will be in many circumstances. If you remove the right to cross examine then the credibility of the witness is not tested sufficiently.

Reforms are needed for certain, for example the application by defence counsel to have the prior sexual history of the victim entered as evidence seems all too common. My only concern is that some lobbyists go too far and the accused's case is compromised as a result. The issue of non reporting is a problem certainly, there appears to be a distrust of the system. But it's not as simple as saying that we need to fiercely protect the alleged victim during the trial in order to ensure more women will report sexual assaults.

I wasn't comparing child sexual assault to adult sexual assault in terms of which is more terrible, but if video evidence can be used for one, then why not the other?Does the law have to be that different when the girl in question is aged 15 as opposed to 18?

Are we saying that video testimony is not safe? If so, then why is is allowed to convict child molestors? And if it is acceptable, then why can't it be used for adults?

If the law deems such testimony safe in one type of sexual assault case, then why not in another?

I go back to my original point that, as the story is told in the above article, the process here is badly flawed, and puts an unnecessary amount of stress and pressure on the alleged victim.

Thomas Clarke wrote:I wasn't comparing child sexual assault to adult sexual assault in terms of which is more terrible, but if video evidence can be used for one, then why not the other?Does the law have to be that different when the girl in question is aged 15 as opposed to 18?

Are we saying that video testimony is not safe? If so, then why is is allowed to convict child molestors? And if it is acceptable, then why can't it be used for adults?

If the law deems such testimony safe in one type of sexual assault case, then why not in another?

I go back to my original point that, as the story is told in the above article, the process here is badly flawed, and puts an unnecessary amount of stress and pressure on the alleged victim.

Well the situations are entirely different and leave would need to be given by the court for video evidence, in that context "Minor" would likely not include someone of 15 years of age. I was speaking more about young children who are protected more for a variety of reasons.. Lack of understanding of what is going on, greater fear of their surroundings, cross examination regarding consent (usually the crucial matters of rape cases) being irrelevant, the greater trauma of the experience on a child..