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.
WHEN TD RUTH Coppinger held up a black lace thong in the Dáil last week, she was hoping to bring attention to ‘rape myths’ in court cases.
What followed was both national and international interest in the ‘stunt’, as well as protests on the subject of sexual consent, which came about after a woman’s underwear was mentioned by senior counsel in court.
Coppinger says the outrage and protest show:
What an international phenomenon the question of violence against women is and how young people, men and women, are not willing to accept the ongoing victim blaming that we see in court rooms.
She suggests that a real difference can only come about through legal and societal changes in workplaces, court rooms, education as well as public and private spaces.
“I think people should take note that protest works,” she says, adding that active movements can help in putting a stop to violence against women.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What the barrister did was absolutely wrong and should not have been allowed to stand by the judge or defense. Having said that, people seem to forget that there was a lot more evidence given in this case and a jury made a decision based on everything they heard over the entire trial.
@Andy Dwyer: don’t think anybody is questioning that it’s more the fact that it shouldn’t have been used at all .
@Andy Dwyer: This has been misreported, the barrister, Elizabeth O’Connell SC, did not show any underwear to the jury. She said;
“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone,” Ms O’Connell asked. “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”
Most of us can agree this was very inappropriate as was the suggestion the victim was somehow to blame for her own attack by what sort of underwear she wore.
It was equally opportunistic for Coppinger to hold the underwear up in the Dáil and imply both directly and indirectly that this was what had been done during the trial. If she knew people were making a mistake she did nothing to correct this error, if she didn’t she owes an apology. Her tweets clearly claim underwear is held up in court, which we know in this case was wrong.
https://www.thejournal.ie/thong-dail-ruth-coppinger-4337275-Nov2018/
@Andy Dwyer: And on top of this not all the evidence was reported on. Why?. Would it be because it would not cause uproar and sensationalism in the media. I believe the reporter who covered this story was not there for all the trial. Full facts not printed.
@Arch Angel: Andy Dwyer didn’t say she showed the underwear
@steve white: I appreciate that, however Coppinger herself certainly took advantage of the opportunity, she misrepresented the situation.
When others, including me too, believed the underwear had been held up in court she either didn’t know, in which case she didn’t do due diligence, or didn’t correct the error if she did. This was blatant opportunism.
@Arch Angel: you are right! This story has gone into the realms of public folklore at this stage, a lot of people are saying that the defense lawyer held up a thong in court, so sorry for the real victim in this case, ( the woman who was attacked) ,
The case took six days there was never a thong produced . The barrister made the remark as part of her long summing up .
Rightly or wrongly those are the actual facts
The man in question was found NOT guilty by a jury of his and her peers
@jerry slattery: The girl herself is frightened out of her life of been identified something that two of the quality papers have all bug done.
For Miss Coppinger and the Media this is about sales clickbait and votes …The couple involved here come very much secondary
@jerry slattery: because a politician can’t be outraged that what the girl was wearing was even mentioned in court?
@EillieEs: unless the attacker has x-ray vision how was he to know what kind of underwear a girl is wearing? Therefore why was it even brought up to suggest she was “up for it ” ?
@Siobhán Ni Mhurchú: you would have had to sit through the six days of evidence and summing up to work that one out . Neither you nor I were there so we will never know
@Siobhán Ni Mhurchú: I think the defence argument was that the sex was consensual and therefore the reference to underwear was part of building a picture of a person open to casual sex which would mean the defendant’s story was plausible. Seems to me the barrister was never suggesting the lacy thong suggested consent, but that it was indicative of the woman’s likelihood to have been up for casual sex, which is ludicrous of course.
Why is it not reported that the offending barrister is also a woman?
@Niall Power: It has been reported. But what does the gender of the barrister have to do with the situation that the underwear of a victim of sexual violence was used to imply she was asking for it?
@Felicity Hensen: By calling her a victim you are saying that he was guilty. The jury found him not guilty based on all the evidence they heard.
@Frank McGlynn: ah go away will ya.
@Niall Power: To be fair it was reported that this barrister is a woman, I don’t see that this makes much difference, unless the defendant believed it may have given him some sort of advantage. From what I’ve read she has an excellent reputation.
Personally, while I’ve used the term ‘victim’ to be correct, I don’t like it, especially not in this case. I prefer ‘survivor’ or ‘winner’, and while the defendant was found to be not guilty, something I find quite surprising, I believe those terms to be quite appropriate in this case.
@Frank McGlynn: My house was burgled. No-one was convicted of the crime. Am I no longer a victim of a crime?
@Felicity Hensen: You are what you chose to be. I don’t know if you have children, this young lady was 17 when this happened to her, reading what happened is the sort of thing that keeps any parent up at night. I have no issue treating her with dignity and compassion.
Yes, her attacker was found not guilty, how is a mystery to me, maybe you’d take the time to read this article.
@Arch Angel:
He was found not guilty
The jury having heard all the evidence found him not guilty
Media and politicians with an agenda don’t take priority over a jury
Get over it and select a case that is more appropriate
@John the Baptist:
Indeed he was, I agree.
They did indeed, and as we know juries have never been known to make a mistake.
At no point did I make this claim and agree with it.
I didn’t ‘select’ this case any more than you did, but responded to the assertions made in reference to it.
@Arch Angel: that makes for truly horrific reading. I cannot imagine how devastated the girl was that he was acquitted. It’s no wonder so few victims report it to the Gardaí.
@EillieEs: it would make you think what was it that they found him mot guilty ?
@Arch Angel: I think you may have misinterpreted my reply to Frank McGlyn, who claimed that my calling this young woman a victim was incorrect due to the alleged perpetrator being found not guilty.
Kick start a movement about sexism and consent? Have we not had one for the past 2 years or so? And rightly so. But this is just a publicity stunt for Coppinger with an election looming.
She was right to highlight this hopefully something good will come out of it.
Unless there is direct evidence linked to underwear then there is no justification in shaming a victim in court by producing their intimate garments, courts should be mindful that long after they move on to the next case, the unfortunate victim is trying to come to terms with a life changing event and sometimes it is the like of this shaming which makes a recovery impossible.
@Honeybee: She was not a victim. He was found not guilty by the jury having considered all the evidence.
@Frank McGlynn: Our justice system uses a burden of proof,balancing the facts to try and achieve a just decision, it would be illogical to assume the verdict is always the correct one, ( I am not referring to the court case in question). We all know of cases where people have walked free when their guilt was not proven, can you imagine how it must feel to someone who was wronged to see this happen.
@Honeybee: ‘Intimate Garments’ were NOT produced.
@sean o’dhubhghaill: I never said they were,I said they should not be produced unless there is direct evidence linked to them.
@Honeybee: no underwear was held up in court in this trial
@dublincomments: As I pointed out to already to sean o’dhubhghail, read my comment above.
@Honeybee: “Unless there is direct evidence linked to underwear then there is no justification in shaming a victim in court by producing their intimate garments”
You did imply in your first comment that they were shown as evidence
@Honeybee: name one
She was just doing some undie cover work
Here today……thong tomorrow!
The worst thing one can be in this country is a victim in a court of law.
Victims have no rights and the accused are usually 3rd or 4th generation sc#m bags with a court room loyalty swipe card.
@BaaB: surely, you mean “alleged victim “.?
@Liam Mernagh: victims in general. When someone has been convicted it’s all about them .every excuse is given to reduce the sentence more and more, suspended sentences .convicts walking out of court without even serving a days prison time. Imagine how thise victims feels because no judge ever thinks about how they must be feeling.
I’m afraid that for many people, when Ruth coppinger attaches herself to a cause, the cause itself is immediately damaged and loses some credibility.
When you see what some of these “women” have or dont have on their a rse, its no wonder that ejits think they can jump on their bones. In somoe cases, the women are at fault for provoking advance of an unwanted nature
have your say