The social media hysteria in NI that has followed this court case makes a mockery of our justice system
Social media... where every man is innocent until proven guilty by trending hashtag. Because all those Enrageds of Twitter do know so much better — don’t they? — than 11 jury members who sat through the entire trial, heard all the evidence, considered and debated the same with their jurist colleagues in a rational and fair manner.
And having weighed it all up, then came to the unanimous conclusion that there was not enough evidence to convict.
‘Not guilty’, however, counts for nothing in the cyber court where, as usual, it’s the loudest, screechiest voices who now command attention.
In the hysteria that has followed this case — and it is hysteria — even people who should know better have joined in posting — in some cases — daft, ill-advised and outrageous comments.
This is not just making a mockery of the courts and the law of the land, but of justice itself. We all need to calm down a bit. Few court cases in any of our lifetimes have spawned such a febrile argument over the verdict.
A verdict that was reached (and it’s important to repeat this) by 11 objective jurists who, unlike those now reaching for their hashtags, were actually in the court every day, listened to the evidence and judged the case solely upon the evidence.
That is how our justice system works.
In sexual assault trials there may well be strong arguments for changes. Anonymity for the defendants, for example. Cases to be heard in camera (ie without members of the public in attendance).
But in this instance the court reached its verdict fairly and squarely. You either accept the rule of law or you don’t.
And crying feminism makes no difference.
I regard myself as being as feminist as the next sister. To such an extent that I do not believe that simply because someone is female we must accept that every single word they say is the unvarnished truth.
That is not feminism. That is matronising. But whatever your opinion on the court’s verdict in this instance — and nobody is suggesting that people shouldn’t have an opinion on it — that’s a different thing from
❝ Even people who should know better have joined in posting, in some cases, daft comments
posting highly contentious material online. The response to this case from many quarters hasn’t been reasoned debate but glib outrage. Maybe we should just do away with the jury system altogether and in future let the hashtag lynch mob decide who’s guilty and who’s innocent?
Part of the complication with this case is that, in the Republic of Ireland in particular, where it has also made major headlines, it has been conflated into a debate about women’s rights amid the run-up to a referendum there on changes to the state’s strict abortion laws.
On Friday, May 25, voters will be asked to choose if they want to see changes to the current abortion legislation, upheld in the eighth amendment of the Irish constitution.
For what it is worth, I totally support the call for change, and would love to see progress on the abortion law here too in Northern Ireland.
I just don’t accept that, in order to further women’s rights, in this case I am duty bound to “believe her” and to reject the court’s findings and thus demean its authority — solely because the complainant is female.
Above all, I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable that the aftermath of a trial over this most serious of allegations has been turned into a circus — a judicial soap opera — with people taking sides entirely on grounds of gender or class (even though all concerned appear to be middle-class).
This was a messy trial. The fallout messier still.
There needs to be a long, hard look at how we deal with such cases in future. In this instance the celebrity of the defendants inevitably attracted the massive media coverage and follow-on public interest.
Had that not been the case — had their identities not been revealed unless found guilty — would it not have been less harrowing for all involved?
Might it not have neutered the vitriol of many of those keyboard attorneys-at-law?
There is only one side you can be on in this case, I would argue, and that is on the side of 11 people, eight men and three women who, as the judge pointed out, stepped out of their lives for the long, arduous weeks of this case.
They gave it their full attention. We know they are honourable people because they did not shirk from that duty.
It can’t have been an easy thing to do. But they did what they had to do as any of us would like to think we would, if called upon. And to now swipe aside their verdict with sneering contempt doesn’t only disrespect their ability and their very real and considerable contribution and, with that, the integrity of the entire court.
It also demeans justice.
❝ It was a messy trial... there needs to be a long, hard look at how we deal with such cases in future