Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

This directive seeks to ensure that the victims of crime receive the right information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. It has been broadly welcomed as a step forward by various organisations across the EU that campaign for the rights of victims. I also welcome it. I hope this directive can provoke a discussion about how the interests of victims can be served best in the Irish legal system.

Last week, in the Central Criminal Court, the trial of four men accused of various sexual offences against a woman in her home in 2018 collapsed. The case raises issues very relevant for this debate. The first accused person, a 25-year-old man, had pleaded not guilty to oral rape and sexual assault. The second accused person had pleaded not guilty to rape and sexual assault. The third accused person, a 35-year-old, had pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape, one count of oral rape and a sexual assault.

5 o’clock

The fourth accused pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape and sexual assault. While the female complainant was in the witness box facing cross-examination, she became upset and asked for permission to take a break. After consultations with the doctor, the State applied to the court to allow the woman to continue her evidence via video link. The application was refused. The following day, the State entered a nolle prosequion each of the counts faced by each of the four men, meaning that all charges against the men were dropped. This woman had to wait five years for the case to come to trial. As is the case in all such trials, she had no right to legal representation and she had no right to legal advice. She faced the prospect of being cross-examined by four separate legal teams. Each defendant had a solicitor, senior counsel and junior counsel. She had to face an accused person who was known to her. It is not a terrible surprise that this woman was unable to continue with her testimony in court nor was it unreasonable that the State would request that she be allowed to give evidence by video link. It is not unknown to happen in sexual offences cases in Irish courts, but it is very unusual. Video evidence is the exception that proves the rule. In other common law jurisdictions such as England, Wales, Scotland and most states in Australia, the likelihood is that the woman would have been allowed to use video link evidence. It is part of the culture there and increasingly that is the case.

The legal system in this country places a value on a person making an accusation being present in court so that the accused person or persons can see their accuser in the room. I understand that and I see the value in it. Sexual offences trials, however, are not like other trials. A majority of complainants will know the accused and in many cases they will have been very close to them. The legal expert Tom O'Malley has made the point that for this reason any witness can be made vulnerable because of the nature of the case. The complainant can see the person they allege sexually assaulted them. They can maybe even smell the person.

Furthermore, rape crisis centres report that increasing numbers of rapes are gang rapes. In all likelihood this means that an increased number of complainants will have to face off in a courtroom against multiple teams of legal professionals. The horror of this was shown by this trial and was shown most graphically perhaps in the infamous Belfast rape trial. Video link evidence needs to become a far more common feature in sexual offences cases in this State. We live in a capitalist society that is shot through with sexism and misogyny. Historically, and still to this day, this same sexism and misogyny is reflected through the legal system. It is little wonder then that a small minority of rapes are reported and a small minority of reported rapes result in successful prosecution. Victims of rape have been given every reason by the system not to step forward and last week's case will likely compound that problem.

Clearly there are many changes that need to be made to the legal system to improve the rights of victims in sexual offences cases. Among many other things there should be access to free legal advice, there should be compulsory training for all legal and court professionals, all cases should be heard in camera, counselling records and information on sexual history should have no role in such cases, and at an absolute minimum the rape crisis centres insist that when such information is requested the victims and legal aid boards are given adequate notice.

In conclusion, I offer my best wishes and solidarity to the young woman who saw the four men walk free before the case against them could be fully made. The time for video link evidence to become far more common in such cases is now.

See this speech in context