Teenage girl's underwear considered as evidence against her in rape trial, sparking fury among campaigners

‘You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,’ says barrister 

Maya Oppenheim
Women's Correspondent
Friday 09 November 2018 14:09
Comments
The head of a Dublin rape charity says she is not surprised by the focus placed on the girl’s underwear
The head of a Dublin rape charity says she is not surprised by the focus placed on the girl’s underwear

A teenager’s underwear has been used against her in an alleged rape case in Cork, sparking outrage among campaigners.

The barrister representing a man acquitted of raping a teenager in the city in southwest Ireland suggested the jury in the case should reflect on the underwear worn by the 17-year-old girl.

The 27-year-old man – who had denied raping the woman in a lane in Cork – was found not guilty by the jury of eight men and four women at the Central Criminal Court.

In her closing address, senior counsel Elizabeth O’Connell told the jury they should have regard for the fact the woman was wearing a thong with a lace front, according to The Irish Examiner.

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,” she said.

Noeline Blackwell, the head of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, said she was not surprised by the focus placed on the teenage girl’s underwear.

“The reference to the girl’s underwear and the assumption and inference that the jury was being invited to draw – that because she was dressed like that she was asking for sex – does not surprise us,” she said.

“We accompany people to court and the whole time we see rape stereotypes used to discredit complainants and to enforce elements of the defendant’s case.”

Ms Blackwell, a human rights lawyer, argued that juries were influenced by stereotypes around rape that permeate society and called for there to be more judicial direction to mitigate this.

In her closing speech, Ms O’Connell argued the incident had been consensual.

The issue of consent dominated the case, with the girl telling the man: “You just raped me,” and the man saying: “No, we just had sex.”

Arguing for the prosecution, Tom Creed SC told the jury: “She is quite clear she did not consent. She said she never had sexual intercourse before.”

Critics have lashed out at the barrister’s remarks about her underwear on social media – accusing her of victim blaming.

“Can’t get over this barrister asking jury to reflect on a teen’s underwear and if her lace thong suggested she was ‘open’ to meeting someone,” an editor at The Irish Times tweeted. “Wondering what kind of underwear suggests a man is ‘open’ to meeting someone? Any legal experts know? Appalling.”

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in