In March, four men walked free from a Belfast courtroom after a celebrity rape trial that had for nine long weeks.
Playing out before a packed gallery and a jury made up of eight men and three women, the high-profile case included two international rugby players who played with Ulster: Paddy Jackson, charged with rape and sexual assault, and Stuart Olding, charged with oral rape. Two of their friends also faced charges: Blane McIlroy, accused of one count of exposure, and Rory Harrison, accused of perverting the course of justice and withholding information. All four men were acquitted of the charges.
The complainant, a 19-year-old student at the time of the incident, and the four accused men had been at a party at Jackson’s house in the Northern Ireland capital of Belfast in 2016. She claimed in court that she was vaginally raped by Jackson in an upstairs bedroom of the house, and then orally raped by Olding. At one point, she claimed McIlroy entered the room naked holding his penis in his hand and propositioned her. She claimed she refused, replying, “How many times does it take for a girl to say no for it to sink in?” and left the room. Harrison, consoling her, took her home in a taxi. “She was in hysterics,” he later messaged his friends.
Paddy Jackson arrives at Belfast Laganside courts. Source: AAP
The next day the complainant sent a message to Harrison telling him what happened the night before “was not consensual” and messaged three other friends telling them she had been raped by two Ulster rugby players. She took the morning-after pill and underwent a forensic medical examination by a doctor who told her she was bleeding due to an internal tear in her vagina. The following day she went to the police.
Details of the case included controversial shared between the men in a WhatsApp group. “We are all top shaggers”, “There was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas” and “It was like a merry-go-around at a carnival,” reportedly wrote Olding. “There was a lot of spit roast last night,” offered Jackson, who denied both raping and having consensual sex with complainant (both he and Olding said she performed consensual oral sex on them).
The complainant was cross-examined for eight days by four defence lawyers. The blood-stained clothes she wore on the night, including her underwear, were passed around the jury at the request of the defence, who also made a point of suggesting to the complainant that she was “fixated” with Jackson and had been “staring” at him during the night. The complainant remained anonymous, but video footage of her testimony was shown in the public court and her identity quickly circulated on social media.
The result is an often adversarial and stressful environment that may discourage victims and prosecutors from pursuing a case.
The jury – made up of eight men and three women - took less than four hours to find the four men not guilty on all counts.
Noeline Blackwell, CEO of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, says the trial and its verdict has created enormous public debate in Northern Ireland and Ireland.
“There has been an outpouring of concern for the way in which the complainant was treated in the trial, a lot of discussion about boastful texts and WhatsApp messages, many demonstrations and rallies in Belfast, Dublin and other cities around Dublin and a huge level of interest in the justice system for victims of sexual violence.”
Blackwell identifies many problematic aspects of the trial, from the role of social media to the lengthy cross-examination imposed on the complainant. If the trial had happened in Ireland, “all parties would have been anonymous during the trial,” says Blackwell, therefore avoiding the huge amount of media attention that surrounded it.
Once the not-guilty verdict was announced, the hashtag #IBelieveHer quickly began trending on Twitter as people around the world tweeted their support for the complainant. Many tweets came from women who said the complainant’s experience of the trial – from the extensive cross-examination to the ultimate acquittal of the accused – would discourage them from reporting incidents.
Sexual assault in Australian courts
In Australia, the situation is hardly more encouraging. The prosecution must establish that the defendant did not know the complainant did not consent to sex – provides a good overview of judicial process around sexual assault in New South Wales. Complainants “almost always” have to testify in court and are cross-examined by defence lawyers, who . The defendant, on the other hand, rarely takes the stand. The result is an often adversarial and stressful environment that may discourage victims and prosecutors from pursuing a case.
The figures show how few reported sexual assaults result in a conviction. In New South Wales ; 802 people faced court on sex offences; 429 were found guilty; 203 received a custodial sentence and 218 received a non-custodial penalty such as a bond.
Blackwell says there is a real risk that victims of sexual violence will choose not to report assault – “less from the guilty verdict and more from the way in which the complainant is treated by the justice system.”
In 2018, talked to victims, lawyers and judges about what it's like to go through a sexual assault trial and asked whether the system needs to change. You can watch that episode on .
