The Rugby Thread

SuperDave84 wrote: If that belief is objectively reasonable, it should be an acquittal. The jury will have to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's belief was not objectively reasonable.

MC Hammered wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: If that belief is objectively reasonable, it should be an acquittal. The jury will have to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's belief was not objectively reasonable. Cheers SD. It just seems a bit odd. Does that mean that there is a defence in cases where a fella is locked or off his head and he claims that "she was loving it" as far as he was aware?

Nope. That's not an objectively reasonable belief. Intoxication is only a defence in very, very limited circumstances, not in the present case.

Jackson says he didn't have sex with her.....the victim says she was vaginaly raped.......her word against his(pending any medical evidence)to me it would seem the only person who can say that sex took place is the girl that stood at the door...she says she saw Jackson on his knees in a trusting motion toward the victim,when the girls that was at the door was asked if she could see jacksons penis inside the victim she's said no....does that not imply reasonable doubt???therefore their walking........

What should be the decision if the lads knew she wasn't 'mad into' what she was doing but she wasn't really making it very clear that they should stop.

I'm even thinking with me own moth and giving her a bit of a grope when she's clearly not in the mood but that doesn't stop me going until she clearly tells you to "f**k off not tonight ".

What's the line?

I think based on what I've read there is a bit of a doubt . I'd be looking for legal guidance off the judge before determining



Edited by t_rAndy - 16 Feb 2018 at 12:14am

Was thinking that last week when they were grilling her on how drunk she was and how good her memory was of the night. What about the men's state of drunkenness and memory.

medical evidence is next up in the Jackson/olding rape case

Medical evidence was given yesterday. She had a vaginal tear of over 1cm, and a couple of bruises in various parts of her body. Doctor said there's no way of being able to tell whether the tear was through consensual sex or how old the bruises were. Also a bit of questioning as to why she never told the doctors that she was forced to give oral to Olding, but told the police this.

A forensic scientist is now giving evidence. She says swabs taken from the complainant's vagina returned negative for semen.

Ireland in trouble here.

Awful miss by Sexton for the first penalty kick.

Stockdale is some talent