New law in Northern Ireland grants anonymity to sex offence suspects until they are charged

www.bbc.com...

New laws have come into force in Northern Ireland, which will grant anonymity to people suspected of sexual offences until they are charged.

Members of the public will also be excluded from the Crown Court during sexual offence cases.

From Thursday, people who are being investigated by the police on suspicion of sexual offences will have their anonymity protected unless they are charged. They cannot be identified until 25 years after their death.

The provision for anonymity ends at the point at which a suspect is charged.

The existing right to anonymity for victims is being extended from the point of their death until 25 years after they have died.

The change to the law on who can attend sexual offences cases in the Crown Court means that access will be restricted to people directly involved in the proceedings, and to "bona fide" journalists

The first country in the UK to use common sense and stop the media trials and the convictions in the courts of public opinion and social media before one has even been arrested and charged.

It follows the acquittal of two rugby players who were accused of sexual assault and rape in a very high profile case in Northern Ireland back in 2018.

So you unless you're charged for sexual assault or rape or any other sexual offences you will be anonymous and your anonymity will be protected for a long period of time after your death (25 years).



Guardian Article on the case

www.theguardian.com...

The verdicts were unanimous and came swiftly. After a trial that had lasted nine weeks, with four defendants and multiple charges, the jury deliberated for just under four hours. On 28 March this year, Belfast’s largest criminal courtroom was packed to the doors – which were locked to prevent more onlookers from piling in. The jury foreman, a tall woman, stood up, and as the judge read out each of the charges, she replied: “Not guilty.”

The Ireland rugby player Paddy Jackson was found not guilty of rape and not guilty of assault. His team mate Stuart Olding was found not guilty of rape. Their friend Blane McIlroy was found not guilty of exposure. The fourth man, their friend Rory Harrison, was found not guilty of concealing evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice

Outside the court building on the River Lagan, the crowd pressed in, cameraphones aloft, as the men emerged. The trial had dominated the news in Ireland. The evidence had been sexually explicit, and had been debated heatedly, and in great detail, at bus stops, in hairdressers, shops and bars and around dinner tables. The #MeToo movement was in full flow, and women from all over the island of Ireland were telling painful stories of sexual humiliations at the hands of men.

Men and women were appalled by the sexist attitudes the young men displayed in private social media conversations that had been aired in evidence. Others focused their anger on the judicial process. The complainant had to spend eight days in the witness box, being cross-examined by four sets of barristers, all men. Her bloodied thong was passed to the jury for examination.

Yet others were outraged on behalf of the defendants, pointing to flaws and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. The case should never have got to court, they said. They felt it was unjust that the defendants were named and photographed – almost every day, their photographs were displayed alongside shocking headlines in the papers, while film of them arriving at court with their families was shown on television. Their names and faces remain notorious, despite the not guilty verdict, and the whole process has been damaging to their careers. During the trial, the Irish rugby team – which incorporates players from the whole island – won the grand slam at the Six Nations. Eight months later, they defeated New Zealand and swept the board at the World Rugby awards. It was the greatest year in Ireland’s rugby history – and Jackson and Olding missed it

That's how it should be in relation to all serious alleged crimes committed by a person.

I wonder what the penalties are for those who lie, exaggerate, or distract the process of justice.

originally posted by: Muldar
That's how it should be in relation to all serious alleged crimes committed by a person.

I wonder what the penalties are for those who lie, exaggerate, or distract the process of justice.

as long as ni doesn't use community resolutions to avoid court cases this is good.. but if England is anything to go by the police use community resolutions to avoid many types of crime going to court up to the level of sex offences against minors, a community resolution is basically saying sorry for the crime then being let off without a criminal record.

we are 1 year on from the suspension of a labour mp, no speculation in the media in that time as its an ongoing investigation, it seems they only speculate on those they want to try in the media, some of these headlines appear to be blatant dead catting by Westminster wanting to be seen as tough on crime while failing miserably.

in my local shopping precinct sex offences are getting close to be the same levels as shop lifting to the point ( as i said in another post) they have employed a lot of private security guards to protect the public as the police/justice system are unable or unwilling to..

Not enough. It should be a criminal offence to reveal information about persons in a criminal case until the jury returns a verdict or a deal reached tbh.

I remember a time when every other thread was about Weinstein..

originally posted by: knoxie
I remember a time when every other thread was about Weinstein..

What are you're trying to say?
You don't want threads criticising the justice system of said country or the very unfortunate developments in Brand's case?

This is somewhat difficult. In many cases of sexual abuse, a bunch of people come forward once things are public and they feel safe, making a good case for the prosecutor to charge. It becomes a question of privacy vs. the protection of (usually) children.

Which deserves more protection? This is not such a simple thing. If your kids' volleyball coach is being investigated for taking pictures and fondling, you probably would feel differently instead of not knowing for a month while they build up the case and he is still working and fondling your kid because the DA is afraid of criminal repercussions by telling the school and the school is afraid of notifying parents etc.

It's just not a simple thing.

One thing that is sure is that false accusations should be met with significant criminal punishment and public recanting/apologies.

originally posted by: Halfswede
This is somewhat difficult. In many cases of sexual abuse, a bunch of people come forward once things are public and they feel safe, making a good case for the prosecutor to charge. It becomes a question of privacy vs. the protection of (usually) children.

Which deserves more protection? This is not such a simple thing. If your kids' volleyball coach is being investigated for taking pictures and fondling, you probably would feel differently instead of not knowing for a month while they build up the case and he is still working and fondling your kid because the DA is afraid of criminal repercussions by telling the school and the school is afraid of notifying parents etc.

It's just not a simple thing.

One thing that is sure is that false accusations should be met with significant criminal punishment and public recanting/apologies.

A perfect example on why it's not as simple as some are making it out to be.

originally posted by: Halfswede
This is somewhat difficult. In many cases of sexual abuse, a bunch of people come forward once things are public and they feel safe, making a good case for the prosecutor to charge. It becomes a question of privacy vs. the protection of (usually) children.

Which deserves more protection? This is not such a simple thing. If your kids' volleyball coach is being investigated for taking pictures and fondling, you probably would feel differently instead of not knowing for a month while they build up the case and he is still working and fondling your kid because the DA is afraid of criminal repercussions by telling the school and the school is afraid of notifying parents etc.

It's just not a simple thing.

One thing that is sure is that false accusations should be met with significant criminal punishment and public recanting/apologies.

Public trials or media trials must stop and although I agree with your last paragraph I disagree with naming suspects before even any real trial has started and I will take it further to the trial has concluded and the person found guilty.

False and malicious accusations must be met with severe punishment. That's different though to some cases where one has evidence bit isn't enough to convict someone.

No, people want to CALL the issue complicated because they enjoy being able to assert whatever they want about a person without any consequences.

A lot of times people could dogpile onto a figure with accusations because they know people are gonna think "If multiple people are saying it it must be true." I don't like that either, and many people don't. A monied interest can easily silence a person by paying a few women to lie on T.V. It never even has to go to court. That person is finished.

It sucks all around, but it has bothered me for years that the average person doesn't give a sh^t about the words "Slander" and "libel". Those are actual crimes if they affect a person's livelihood or wellbeing.

As a journalist, I had a corrupt public official spread a rumor that I was planning a mass shooting and it ruined my effing life. People went along with that and spread the rumor because it's fun to say something juicy and interesting.
The irony is that I had an obligation to be really unbiased to avoid lawsuits bc it was part of my job.
I actually don't think it should matter how many people are asserting something. It should only matter if any of them can prove something.

In the case of Epstein and Weinstein, obviously some of it WAS proveable, therefore, those cases weren't slander or libel.
We just ought to be telling people to provide evidence or else we're not listening to it.
People will cry and wail and say that's insensitive or promotes "rape culture", but either we trust in law and order to determine if someone's guilty, or we abolish the court system altogether, because if unfounded rumors can destroy your life, then we don't have a legal system anymore. We have mob rule.
People also don't like hearing this, but if you've been raped, go to the police immediately and get a rape kit done and fill out a report so there's something on record. Your emotions make you want to take a shower: override them.
People say women are "too afraid" to go to the police, and in a lot of cases, that sounds like total BS.
They're humiliated, and I would be too, but go to the cops immediately, then we won't keep having these
"DID HE OR DIDN'T HE" debates and be unable to determine because it happened 10 years ago and all you have is a claim and a friend who swears you're not lying.

And suspending judgement about something isn't the same as disbelieving.
We should encourage women to go the cops, and if they say they're scared of the guy, give em a place to stay if need be, but don't just automatically think he did it either. We can be impartial and still fair and sensitive, and that should be the norm.

a reply to: Kurokage

a reply to: TheValeyard

In the case of Epstein and Weinstein, obviously some of it WAS proveable, therefore, those cases weren't slander or libel.
We just ought to be telling people to provide evidence or else we're not listening to it.

And again you show why there's a fine line to walk here.
If rich people have enough money they can buy themselves out of anything and also make the accuser look guilty of something or slap an injuction on them.

Take them off the work schedule until the court case is decided.
If they are found innocent, pay them the money they would have made.
We could make that happen.

a reply to: Muldar

"make the accuser look guilty of something..."
by what mechanism? That's what I'm on about.

"Buy themselves out of anything" well that's a separate issue. Epstein should have had years and years, not 18 months.
I suspect that was the result of bribes, but IDK, and certainly the legal privilege of status needs to be eradicated post-haste, but it IS a separate issue from this really.

I agree that there needs to be harsher laws against false accusations.

Look, due process is flawed, but it's better than not having it.
What are you advocating?
Are you trying to say "Believe all women?"
Because, Amber Heard.

There are a lot of things we ought to be doing differently about this stuff.




a reply to: Kurokage

a reply to: Muldar

You are against trials being in public?

Whatever happened to justice being seen to be done?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You are against trials being in public?

Whatever happened to justice being seen to be done?

I meant public media trials and conclusions based on anonymous accusers.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: TheValeyard

In the case of Epstein and Weinstein, obviously some of it WAS proveable, therefore, those cases weren't slander or libel.
We just ought to be telling people to provide evidence or else we're not listening to it.

And again you show why there's a fine line to walk here.
If rich people have enough money they can buy themselves out of anything and also make the accuser look guilty of something or slap an injuction on them.

What are you on here?
What accuser will seem guilty?
If the accuser has evidence it takes it to court not to social media or to documentaries.

You seem to be struggling a lot with this.

originally posted by: TheValeyard
No, people want to CALL the issue complicated because they enjoy being able to assert whatever they want about a person without any consequences.

A lot of times people could dogpile onto a figure with accusations because they know people are gonna think "If multiple people are saying it it must be true." I don't like that either, and many people don't. A monied interest can easily silence a person by paying a few women to lie on T.V. It never even has to go to court. That person is finished.

It sucks all around, but it has bothered me for years that the average person doesn't give a sh^t about the words "Slander" and "libel". Those are actual crimes if they affect a person's livelihood or wellbeing.

As a journalist, I had a corrupt public official spread a rumor that I was planning a mass shooting and it ruined my effing life. People went along with that and spread the rumor because it's fun to say something juicy and interesting.
The irony is that I had an obligation to be really unbiased to avoid lawsuits bc it was part of my job.
I actually don't think it should matter how many people are asserting something. It should only matter if any of them can prove something.

In the case of Epstein and Weinstein, obviously some of it WAS proveable, therefore, those cases weren't slander or libel.
We just ought to be telling people to provide evidence or else we're not listening to it.
People will cry and wail and say that's insensitive or promotes "rape culture", but either we trust in law and order to determine if someone's guilty, or we abolish the court system altogether, because if unfounded rumors can destroy your life, then we don't have a legal system anymore. We have mob rule.
People also don't like hearing this, but if you've been raped, go to the police immediately and get a rape kit done and fill out a report so there's something on record. Your emotions make you want to take a shower: override them.
People say women are "too afraid" to go to the police, and in a lot of cases, that sounds like total BS.
They're humiliated, and I would be too, but go to the cops immediately, then we won't keep having these
"DID HE OR DIDN'T HE" debates and be unable to determine because it happened 10 years ago and all you have is a claim and a friend who swears you're not lying.

And suspending judgement about something isn't the same as disbelieving.
We should encourage women to go the cops, and if they say they're scared of the guy, give em a place to stay if need be, but don't just automatically think he did it either. We can be impartial and still fair and sensitive, and that should be the norm.

a reply to: Kurokage

It's only complicated as you said to those who want to assert whatever they want and be free from any consequences. Usually the woke brigade is fine with such tactics.

a reply to: Muldar

You are very reminiscent of some other dear old late lamented folk on here.

It's very much like trying to have a discussion with a Borg, if I may say so?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You are very reminiscent of some other dear old late lamented folk on here.

It's very much like trying to have a discussion with a Borg, if I may say so?

On the subject of not naming sex offence suspects before they're charged it seems even Borgs and most alien races are more reasonable than humans, especially woke humans who want want to cancel everyone an everything.

So what do when there is a dangerous suspect on the loose and you want the public to be aware?

"There's a dude out there who raped a Generic City teen and stole her car. We know who he is and could post pics, but he can't be identified because ...new law"

It isn't as simple as you want it to be.