The laughter, jeers and scoffs I heard from the public gallery in Belfast were simply shocking
There was a free-for-all atmosphere in court as harrowing evidence was being heard, writes Nicola Anderson
“HOW did you feel being back at Paddy Jackson’s house?” the rugby player’s barrister asked the young woman in the witness box.
“Pretty neutral actually,” she replied evenly — as scornful laughter rang out in the public gallery.
In contrast with the atmosphere of almost monastic austerity in the closed courtroom of an ‘in camera’ rape trial in the Republic, the free-for-all atmosphere that prevailed in the Belfast rape trial was frankly shocking.
Partially responsible for this was the internal structure at Laganside Courts.
In a regular open courtroom setting, anyone who laughed or interjected before a judge would instantly be turfed out.
Here however, due to the thick glass walls boxing off the public gallery from the main well of the courtroom — with another glass box constituting the dock sitting squarely between the public and the lawyers — it meant that the sound from the general seating area was considerably muffled.
This led, at times, to a scant regard for etiquette — as well as for common decency.
Some people appeared to think they were at a stage production where they could react freely and openly to what was being said before them.
At least three quarters of the public gallery seemed to be in support of the defendants.
And though the judge appeared to be completely unaware of any disturbance, it was still grossly disquietening to hear their comments on the evidence, barely concealed in a half whisper.
Naturally, it was worst when the young woman herself was in the witness box.
A blue curtain drawn around her, she was visible on screen and she wept as she described her version of events that night.
From their seats in the glass-walled dock, the four defendants gazed intently at her on the screen. Dressed in a jumper and light-coloured chinos, Paddy Jackson had a large notebook on his knee in which he wrote copiously throughout the morning. From having been relatively full the previous day, the public seating area was heaving.
At several points during her testimony, there were jeers and scoffs from family members of the accused. “Choking on her lies,” said an older woman amid satisfaction at one stage.
Regardless of the eventual verdict, this was intolerable behaviour and added greatly to the toxic environment that prevailed over the eight and a half weeks.
On the woman’s seventh day in the witness box, the tense atmosphere heightened considerably as she was cross-examined by Mr McIlroy’s barrister Arthur Harvey, who suggested that rather than rape, she had engaged in consensual sex.
“Your memory is frayed and ragged throughout this whole incident, from the beginning of the evening to the end of the evening, isn’t that right?”, she said: “I wouldn’t use the words fractured or frayed, but yes, they are slightly hazy.”
“There are moments that I can’t remember. No-one remembers exact moments from a night out,” she said. “You can’t be expected to remember each thing you have done.”
Suggesting her memory was “clouded by drink or an unwillingness to acknowledge what happened”, he accused her of “moving from truth to untruth, or falsehood and self-delusion”.
“Are you calling me deluded?” she asked him tensely.
Mr Harvey asked her: “If you called out for help or assistance, it would have been heard by the three girls downstairs.”
As she started to reply by saying “that’s not how you react when you have been raped”, the barrister interrupted and queried why she was using the term “you” instead of “I”.
“Mr Harvey, I am not going to argue with you about grammar,” she said. “You are not going to put words in my mouth, thank you very much.”
During the medical evidence which revealed bruising and an internal 1cm bleeding laceration, six men walked out during a general discussion of the parts of the female anatomy.
It appeared that while it might not intolerable to listen to the details of a rape, the detailed explanation of the female genitalia provoked an inexplicable squeamishness. Spectators unconnected with the trial settled comfortably into the same seats in courtroom 12 from early on in the trial.
Amongst them, was a retired teacher commuting daily from a border town, for the sheer entertainment value. Rape trial day-trippers were another unsavoury feature of this trial.
On one occasion, an elderly couple had come up from the Republic for the day and visited the Titanic Experience before popping into the Laganside Courts for a casual look, excited to see this hotly discussed spectacle with their own eyes.
Given the sensitivity of the issue at hand, it was highly distasteful. Tension and worry amongst the families of the defendants only truly became apparent during the closing statements. At one stage,
Rory Harrison’s mother wept, her head on the shoulder of a relative. The jury sat, taking copious notes at the instruction of Brendan Kelly QC for Paddy Jackson, as he told them that this was not a case of morals or sympathy.
“Don’t be distracted by the fact that we all have daughters and all are fathers,” he urged them. “Try this case devoid of sympathy because your oath was to try it on evidence and the law says you must ignore those sentiments.”
On the day of the verdict, one regular attendee chose to sit out the wait while working on a long swathe of crochet. The trial also saw another dimension that was entirely unexpected.
On the second day of the trial, where the young girl took the stand to begin her testimony, the public gallery was overwhelmed by a presence that provoked a storm of public outrage.
Ireland captain Rory Best took his seat to observe her, along with second row Iain Henderson and Ulster and Ireland winger Craig Gilroy.
Best subsequently explained his presence at a post-match press conference in Paris, saying he was “on the record as a character witness”.
“We sign out on Tuesday night, Wednesday is our day off, so technically we don’t need permission to do stuff on our own time,” he said.
“The reason I was there, it’s on the record I’ve been called as a character witness.”
“I was advised it was important to attend, so I got both sides of the story,” he added.
But his presence — on this day of all days , as the girl began her account — was seen by many commentators as highly inappropriate.
Despite the anonymity of the young girl at the centre of this trial, it was possible for anyone to walk in off the street, view the victim on the screen, hear her name being spoken openly and leave — disseminating this information widely to others.
Why this is problematic particularly in the social media age became instantly apparent.
The PSNI have subsequently questioned two individuals who named the woman on social media.
A photograph falsely purporting to be the woman was also widely distributed on online messaging services, such as WhatsApp.
In the aftermath of the verdict, emotions have run high, with consequences both bizarre and unprecedented.
On Thursday, a juror posted comments on a media website — despite being warned by the judge not to reveal what was discussed in the jury room even to family or friends.
Some seven hours after the jury delivered its unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all counts, the juror described the trial, addressing the reasons the jury came to its decision and defending the short time period it had taken to reach its decision.
The comments were referred to the Attorney General and the juror faces arrest.
❝ One regular attendee chose to sit out the wait while working on a long swathe of crochet
❝ In the aftermath, emotions have run high with unprecedented and bizarre consequences