Ulster rape case - A trial by ordeal for all concerned

There were no winners but losers aplenty in the Belfast rape trial, as the repercussions for all concerned will reverberate for a long time to come.

The four accused have been acquitted of rape and sexual assault — among other charges — but their level of drinking on the night in question and their blasé attitude to sexual encounters remain subject to the court of public opinion.

At the same time, the young woman who made the complaint against them must now live not only with the consequences of what happened in Paddy Jackson’s bedroom but also with her decision to press charges.

The trial raises a number of questions: Firstly, the bruising nature of the adversarial system of justice, once characterised as “two barristers calling each other liars in order to arrive at the truth”.

In this case, there were barristers galore, each with something to say and each with something to ask. That meant that the young woman, who was the subject of these proceedings, had to endure eight days of questioning.

It also raises the question of anonymity in rape trials.The system of justice in the Republic of Ireland is different to that which pertains in Northern Ireland.

In our system of justice, neither the complainant nor the accused in a rape trial is named until the trial is over. Indeed, there are certain circumstances where anonymity for all concerned is preserved, even on conviction.

As Noeline Blackwell of the Dublin Rape Crisis centre put it: “While there are some difficulties with our system, this case shows that it is a more humane system as the naming of high-profile defendants was a significant factor in the interest of the press and public in this case.”

There is no doubt that the high profiles of the defendants as members of the Ulster and Ireland rugby teams meant that, once they were identified, there would be huge public interest in the case.

The complainant in the case retains her anonymity but the accused do not, and the question is whether the lingering taint of suspicion will affect their lives and careers.

Indeed, it seems probable that it will, at least, affect the latter. The IRFU and Ulster Rugby issued a statement after the verdict was handed down. It said:

“A Review Committee, made up of senior representatives of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby, has been appointed and will conclude its review as soon as practicable. The players will continue to be relieved of all duties while the Review Committee is in process and determining its findings.”

Compassionate consideration should also be given to the young woman who brought the complaint in the light of what she went through in helping the police to bring the case to trial. Of the eight days she spent being questioned in the witness box, six of them amounted to being cross-examined vigorously by barristers for each of the four defendants, both on her drinking and on her recollection of events on the night.

That isn’t trial by jury; it is trial by ordeal for all concerned.