In a highly controversial case that has sparked intense debate and raised questions about the judicial system, a jury in an alleged gang rape trial has been unable to agree on a verdict. The case, which has been ongoing for several weeks, involved multiple defendants who were accused of gang raping a woman in a hotel room. Despite the evidence presented, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision, leaving many frustrated and disappointed. The case has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the jury system and whether justice is truly being served. In this article, we will delve into the details of the case and explore the implications of the jury’s inability to reach a verdict.
The Central Criminal Court has seen a three-week rape trial involving three young men and a teenage girl come to an inconclusive end. The defendants, all aged between 17 and 18 at the time, said they had consensual sex with the then 17-year-old complainant in a car in a hotel car park. The State, however, argued that the girl was raped in turn by each of the accused after going for a drive with them in December 2017.
After a nine-hour deliberation period, the jury of six men and six women told Justice Melanie Greally on Wednesday that they were unable to agree on a verdict. Justice Greally then instructed the jurors that she could accept a majority decision which 10 or more of them agreed upon. Shortly after, they returned to the courtroom and announced that they disagreed with all eight counts.
The first defendant had denied rape and sexual assault, the second denied rape, oral rape and two counts of sexual assault, and the third had denied rape and oral rape. The offences were alleged to have occurred on December 20th, 2017 when two of the defendants were still minors and the complainant was 17.
After hearing closing speeches, prosecuting counsel Alice Fawsitt SC said that the complainant had refused the defendants’ requests for sex but they hadn’t listened to her. She warned that getting into a car with four men was not the same as giving consent for sex with one, two or three of them. Defence counsel pointed to inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence affecting her credibility as a witness.
Michael O’Higgins SC, defending the first defendant, said: “no means no”, rebuffing claims that his client tied consent to screaming rape. Garnet Orange SC, defending the second defendant, suggested the trio had not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and asked whether it was plausible that the complainant could have been raped succession and not sought help. Mr. Nicholas SC, defending the third defendant, argued that the woman didn’t scream because there was “nothing to be rescued from” and had “regretted” the events of the evening.
The rape trial may be adjourned for mention on April 28th, and the complainant continues to have the right to remain anonymous, whereas the defendants remain entitled to anonymity unless and until they are convicted.
The trial ran at the Central Criminal Court over March 2022.
