The issue of sexual assault has been a long-standing concern in society. In recent years, more and more cases have been brought to trial in an effort to bring perpetrators to justice. However, the legal process is not always straightforward, and cases can become complex and challenging for juries to reach a verdict. In a recent trial over an alleged rape in a hotel car park, the jury has failed to agree on a decision, highlighting the difficulties of this type of prosecution. This article explores the details of the case and the bigger implications of the jury’s decision.
A verdict was not reached in the trial of three young men accused of raping a teenage girl in a car park six years ago. All three defendants, aged 17 and 18 at the time, denied any wrongdoing. The State argued that the girl was raped by each of the accused in turn after going for a drive with them. The case was heard at the Central Criminal Court over a three-week period. After deliberating for over nine hours, the jury of six men and six women told Justice Melanie Greally that they could not reach a verdict.
It was possible for the judge to accept a majority verdict on which ten or more jurors agreed. However, the jury could not come to a definitive decision, and after just over two hours of deliberation, they returned and announced verdicts of disagreement on all eight counts. The defendants, aged 22 and 23, had pleaded not guilty to rape, oral rape, and sexual assault, which allegedly took place on December 20th, 2017, in a hotel car park in the Leinster area. The complainant was 17, as were two of the defendants, and one had just turned 18.
The case has been adjourned for mention on April 28th, and it is unclear whether the prosecution will seek a retrial. During the trial, Alice Fawsitt SC, the prosecuting counsel, argued that the defendants had not listened to the complainant when she said no to their requests for sex. The defence counsel argued that there were inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence that affected her credibility as a witness.
In his closing speech, Michael O’Higgins SC, the defence counsel for the first defendant, argued that his client’s evidence was “no means no” rather than “if you don’t scream rape, there’s consent.” He suggested that there was a “particular set of circumstances” that commenced in a consensual way and unfolded in such a way that it was not rape. Garnet Orange SC, the defence counsel for the second defendant, argued that the prosecution’s case had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He asked whether it was plausible that the complainant was raped in succession by three men and did not attempt to get away.
O’Higgins and Orange both requested that the jurors put themselves in the shoes of a 17-year-old girl who had made a bad decision, suggesting that the girl may have regretted her actions but that it was not rape.
Under the 1981 Rape Act, anyone charged with a rape offence in Ireland is entitled to anonymity unless and until they are convicted. The complainant is entitled to anonymity unless she chooses to waive this entitlement, and the media cannot publish anything that would identify her.
The trial has concluded, but it remains to be seen whether the prosecution will pursue a retrial or seek to drop the charges. This case highlights the complexity and sensitivity of rape cases and the difficulties of achieving justice for both the complainant and the accused in such circumstances.
