In recent weeks, a highly publicised alleged gang rape trial has made headlines across the globe as the jury continues to struggle to reach a verdict. The case has been ongoing for some time now, and tensions have been running high as both sides have presented their arguments in court. However, despite the evidence presented, the jury remains deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict, leaving the victim and defendants in limbo. As the trial reaches its conclusion, many are left questioning the efficacy of the justice system and the impact that cases like this can have on the broader public’s perception of the judicial process.
A rape trial involving three young men in Ireland has ended without a verdict. The defendants were charged with raping a 17-year-old girl in a hotel car park in 2017. The trial ran for three weeks at the Central Criminal Court, and the jury deliberated for just over nine hours before failing to come to a decision. The three defendants denied any wrongdoing, and their lawyers argued that the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility.
The prosecution argued that the complainant had said no to the defendants’ requests for sex and that they did not listen to her. Prosecuting counsel Alice Fawsitt SC said that getting into a car with four men is not consent to sex with any of them. She suggested that the defendants believed the complainant was consenting to sex because she got into the car, but the complainant believed they were going for a drive.
Defence lawyers argued that the prosecution had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They suggested that the complainant had been inconsistent in her evidence, and that it was plausible she had consented to sex with the defendants. Michael O’Higgins SC, defending the first defendant, said his client’s evidence was not “if you don’t scream rape, there’s consent”, but “no means no”. Garnet Orange SC, defending the second defendant, asked whether it was plausible that the complainant had been raped by three men and did not try to get away. Mr Orange suggested that the complainant had made a “catastrophically bad decision” but had an “easy solution which wipes the slate clean”. Mr Nicholas SC, defending the third defendant, argued that the complainant had not taken opportunities to be rescued because there was “nothing to be rescued from”.
The trial was conducted under the 1981 Rape Act, which entitles anyone charged with a rape offence to anonymity unless and until they are convicted. The complainant remains entitled to anonymity unless she chooses to waive this right.
The case has been adjourned until 28th April.
