We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
IN THE AFTERMATH of a rape trial that saw a former Ros na Rún actor convicted of orally raping a young woman the Rape Crisis Network has outlined ways that victims of sexual violence could be better protected during trials.
Garrett Phillips was convicted of orally raping the then 20-year-old woman on the outskirts of Galway city in the early hours of November 5, 2015. He had pleaded not guilty to the offence and has no previous convictions.
In her victim impact statement the woman said the court process, during which she had to sit inches away from her attacker, was one of the hardest things she has ever had to do.
The woman said she was forced to speak about something painful and made to feel like a liar when giving her evidence over two days.
Clíona Saidléar of the Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) said the case illustrates the extreme pressure trials can put on the victims of sexual violence.
She said that there are a measures that could be taken to make the courts process easier for victims.
“You could cut down on delay without impacting due process. You could cut down on cross-examination without impacting on due process,” she said.
We really need to learn to support survivors whose lives are being put on hold. It’s a very difficult space and we need to learn to handle that better.
Describing her personality before the attack the woman described how she had been “ultimately happy” with “no major struggles”. “I wasn’t afraid of anything, I was indestructible,” she said.
She revealed that she still takes medication for depression and anxiety and does not feel safe walking alone or sometimes in her own home.
She said because of the court process taking so long and being “attacking to victims” she was made to feel that the incident was her fault. She said she lost a lot of friends and her family relationships have also suffered.
It’s not my fault, this wasn’t supposed to happen to me, but it did and here I am.
With reporting by Aoife Nic Ardghail
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Cutting down on “delay” – fair enough. Nobody wants a rape trial to go on longer than it has to – and if you’re accused but innocent you’d want it over with quickly too.
However, “cutting down on cross-examination”? This is a bit more dubious. Cross-examination is vital for a fair trial and I don’t think we should be reducing it to spare feelings (within reason, of course – it’s questions, not aggressive interrogation).
The facts need to be established one way or another, and I think that cutting down on cross-examination of a victim certainly could have a major impact on due process. Not sure about that proposal.
@ihcalaM: But it may be that cross-examination is currently excessive, and your ‘it’s questions, not aggressive interrogation’ is how it should be, not how it is. We have seen aggressive and prolonged interrogation in a recent rape case.
@Brendan O’Brien: That was up North, but point taken I suppose. I don’t honestly know how victims/accusers are treated in court here because I haven’t seen it in person.
The point I was attempting to make was that we’d need to thoroughly think through any reductions in cross-examination – it’s not a given that this would be a good thing, and the claim above that it won’t ‘impact due process’ doesn’t hold up.
@Brendan O’Brien:
If cross examination was to be reduced, we would need someone to say that’s enough and no more, this doesn’t seem correct when trying to establish the truth and avoid sending innocent people to prison.
@ihcalaM: you don’t know anything about how a victim gives evidence but you doubt legal people when they say it can be cut down without affecting due process. Riiiiggggghhhhtgttt…..
The only way the system could work under the proposed new guidelines,is if there is real harsh sentence for proven false allegations.
@Dave Walsh: While I do accept it happens, the only way to prove a false allegation is with an admittance. A not guilty verdict doesn’t prove a false allegation, it just proves there wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt under law. If there was a penalty for the accuser simply based on a not guilty verdict, and based on current level of conviction, the level or rapes reported would go from low to non existent. It would also leave victims open to legally endorsed harassment from their attacker.
@Carol Oates: not what I said,the key word here IS proven….look up the meaning…
@Dave Walsh: I wasn’t disagreeing with you.
@Carol Oates: in a case last year in Killarney an allegation was proven to be false by cc TV coverage. The innocent man did not not have any contact with the woman who made the false allegation. She got off with a two and half year suspended sentence – not even a day in jail. The point made above by Dave is valid given that all cases of proven false allegations are treated just as leniently as the Killarney case e.eg a fine of €1000 for woman who admitted a false allegation in Donegal court saying her friendes persuaded her to do so. If such leniency were shown to those convicted of rape there would be a massive outcry from Clíona Sadler etc. They would have more credibility if they also spoke out about the leniency shown to those who are proven to have made false allegations.
@Frank McGlynn: you absolutely right about allegations proven to be false. Proper sentences are needed as a deterrent. It’s an injustice the falsely accused and it harms the attempts to tackle the problem of actual sexual assault/rape being underreported.
The courts in this country just seem to favour the convicted criminal over the victims.
@Frank McGlynn: A case of someone falsely accusing caught on camera is extraordinary rare. A exception rather than rule and doesn’t change an admittance of a false allegation being required rather than a not guilty verdict for the accused to avoid prosecuting people who were actually raped. But yeah, absolutely no argument from me that a false allegation needs an appropriate punishment and certainly not brushed under the carpet.
An accusation of rape is extremely serious and should always be treated as such. Cross examination is an essential part of the trial process to ascertain the truth. Lady justice holds a scales for a reason. The process must be balanced and not weighed against any accused.
@Skipper Mac: it’s not balanced though, its weighted in favour of the accused even if they’re convicted they get more concern and consideration that the victim. Pleading not guilty should be treated as an aggravating factor rather, the convicted persons upbringing shouldn’t be considered (a good upbringing is a mitigating factor and a bad upbringing is a mitigating factor, what kind of childhood is required for no mitigation?)
@Karen Wellington: “it’s not balanced though, its weighted in favour of the accused even if they’re convicted they get more concern and consideration that the victim.”
It has to be Karen for the accused goes to prison whereas the accuser walks free regardless. In an adversarial trial there can only be accused and accuser for innocent until proven guilty doesn’t allow for victim and perpetrator until a guilty verdict comes in. The British have altered this to accused vs victim/ accuser hence the attempt to remove the seriousness of the event which is second only to murder.
“[t]here must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case this requires the court to consider a triangulation of interests. It involves taking into
account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family and the public”. Lord Steyn
http://ijls.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Vol_7_Issue_1_Article_2_Ward_Vulnerable_Witnesses.pdf
There cannot be a victim until after the trial is completed and the Jury verdict is announced as guilty so for an accused fighting for his innocence against a ‘vulnerable witness’ such a disadvantage is an unjust entitlement.
@Karen Wellington: You want people punished for pleading not guilty? Keep your totalitarian ideas to yourself, please.
@WinstonSmith: people who have been convicted of a crime they pleaded ‘not guilty’ to, thereby putting their victim through the whole trial ordeal and costing the taxpayers in the process. Good job deliberately misinterpreting that though.
@WinstonSmith: ok, it would appear I’m not making myself clear so; sorry for the snippy response. I mistakenly used ‘the accused’ when I meant ‘the convicted’.
I think where a person is convicted of a crime where they pleaded ‘not guilty’ it should be considered an aggravating factor rather than a ‘guilty’ plea being considered a mitigating factor.
As I see it; a person who has been found guilty and convicted of a crime is given more consideration than the victim of the crime, particularly when it comes to sentencing.
@Karen Wellington: there have also been people found guilty who pled not guilty at the time, and years later new evidence comes out that forces a change of verdict to not guilty. Should they be penalised for putting their “victim” through a whole trial ordeal?
@Jeffrey McMahon: yep, at the time of the original verdict a jury of their peers found them to be guilty of said crime. If you don’t trust the jury system you should just ignore my proposal and come up with an alternative to juries. Or would you prefer that no one is ever punished just incase there’s new evidence sometime in the future?
If one of the rare cases you alluded to comes to light and a person has been found to be wrongly convicted investigate the original complaint and complainant, maybe they have charges to answer.
@Karen Wellington: The danger with this approach is that it encourages innocent people to plead guilty because of the additional punishment they world face for pleading not guilty, if they are ultimately convicted. The accused should never be pressured to plead guilty or not guilty for any reason other than their guilt or innocence. 2 convicted murderers were recently released in the US after 15 years imprisonment after DNA evidence proved their innocence. They were given additional time as punishment for pleading not guilty.
@Coin Pumper: I find your logic flawed: the accused is currently encouraged to plead ‘not guilty’ to garner leniency, so in the situation you describe whats to stop them feeling pressure to plead ‘guilty’ now if they fear they have a weak defence?
@Karen Wellington: What about those who are proven to have made false allegations against innocent people as in the Killarney case and the Donegal case I have referred to above. The leniency shown to those almost amounts to encouragement.
@Frank McGlynn: i have mentioned that where a verdict is overturned the original complaint and complainant should be investigated, and tough sentences applied where necessary (I think knowingly making a false allegation is already on the statute books but if not it sure as hell should be). And just to be clear; I think this should apply across the board, not just for rape/sexual assault crimes.
It should not take 3 years to bring to trial, poor girl cannot get closer or start to heal untill court process is over. Imagine having to live in same town as accused knowing he free to do as pleases, while she has become a recluse, who will have to re live it all to give evidence,..way too long to wait.
@Kerrie Roche: I agree re the time taken to process these cases. But imagine the trauma suffered by an innocent man who is falsely accused having to live for three years facing the possibility that his life could be destroyed by a conviction for a crime that he did not commit.
@Frank McGlynn: oh on both sides Frank, it has to be horrific to have to wait for over 3 years, it is hell on earth for both families.. in this case he was found guilty, in others like case in North there has been acquittals, and in others innocent. In all senarios would be best if not such long wait.
Time and time again when I read an article about rape or sexual assault in the Journal, there are multiple comments, always from men, about ‘false accusations’. The percentage of false accusations is tiny. I have been fighting the effects of sexual abuse for nearly 40 years. During that time I have met many, many victims of rape and SA, including during inpatient stays in mental health hospital. Never once have I met a man who’s life was ruined by a false accusation. I am not saying they do not happen but they are no where near as prevalent as some on here would have you think. What is prevalent among those who have suffered trauma is a fear of reporting. My abuser eventually admitted that he had done it. I still would not report him because I would not survive the system. We need to change things. Starting in my opinion with sentencing for those found guilty. But please those of you who keep whatabouting, take into consideration the victims of rape/SA reading your comments who vastly outnumber the falsely accused.
@Melissa OHara: I’m sorry you have gone through that Melissa. Well done on providing a reminder to some people on here that there are survivors reading their comments and seeing the lack of compassion. Wishing you all the best.
Let’s bring in a whole graduated system sure. Bring in all these changes to make it a more comfortable process for a victim to make their accusation. Let’s go one step further, the group least likely to report their rape is men because they face the greatest stigma so let’s challenge that stigma too and bring in legislation to skip the whole trial process if a man accuses anyone, just skip straight to conviction.
have your say