Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE CORONATION STREET star Michael Le Vell was found not guilty on all counts of raping a child this week. He has been dragged through the mud of late with horrendously vile allegations hanging over him, the media following the trial in graphic detail and with his career put on hold.
Even now that he has been exonerated, elements in the media continue to rib him. Details emerged during the trial about his private life and in particular his struggles with alcohol. Many newspapers were pointed in their front page headlines picturing Le Vell enjoying a beer after his acquittal. The inference wasn’t all that subtle, and thanks to this trial he will likely have to put up with media scrutiny about his private life and troubles for much time to come.
We have here a man who has done nothing wrong. He was, according to a jury, falsely accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable to civilized people. Yet he has suffered a substantial loss in earnings and massive public embarrassment that will continue, thanks to the incidental details revealed during the trial. He will also most likely have the cloud hanging over his head for the rest of his days. Weeks and months of fevered media reporting of the trial will have implanted an idea in the minds of many people, regardless of the outcome of the trial. It’s human nature for gossip to stick.
Sexual assault is one of the most sensitive and difficult types of crime to get a successful prosecution in. “Cry-wolf” cases are absolutely by far and away a minority of those that make it to trial. A great many more cases of sexual assault, primarily endured by women, don’t even make it to investigation.
In Ireland we have seen shamefully lenient sentences for individuals accused of sexual crimes, ranging from short custodial sentences to slaps on the wrist and judges ordering a cheque be sent to a victim to supposedly make good the incalculable damage done.
We clearly need to improve the quality of justice that victims of sexual crimes receive; and make it easier for them to come forward and make a complaint in the first place. Here at home we need to take a hard look at cases like that of convicted sex offender Danny Foley, who famously had his hand shook by about 50 individuals from the local community – including the parish priest – whilst awaiting sentencing. There is clearly some warped thinking by some in this country about the nature of these crimes.
Nevertheless, a person who is tried for a crime is not guilty of that crime until a jury says so. Whatever it says about our society, and that is another discussion, being accused of a crime like rape is mud that sticks.
Being charged is something that few people walk back from in terms of the instant reputational damage that it has, and even if exonerated the subtle negative effects it has on ones’ life is astounding.
An employer may never say that they are refusing to hire an individual because they were once trialled for something; or a landlord refuse to let a property; or a person refuse to socialise or associate with someone… But it is there and a person accused of such crimes will face barriers in life.
You could say this for any crime, of course. But we already acknowledge the special nature of sexual cases by allowing anonymity to victims in a way that is not seen in other trials; in Ireland, unlike the UK, anonymity provisions are in place for defendants in rape trials because the stigma and the nature of the personal recriminations are different to other crimes.
Granting anonymity to those accused of sexual crimes during their trial is not a perfect solution to sidestepping the damage that can be caused to those who are falsely accused. The ongoing historical inquiry into celebrities who committed crimes against children in the UK would likely not have gained the traction it did if not for the publicity it received. Victims have come forward in part because they feel they are doing so en masse, and there is security in numbers.
Anonymity may stymie investigations, as without the widespread press coverage it sometimes might be difficult to get victims to come forward. On the other hand, justice is replete with examples of procedural rules that protect the accused. The philosophy of innocent until proven guilty drives this, quite rightly for all the frustration it can occasionally cause when faced with the glaringly obviously guilty.
Le Vell will likely spring back from his troubles and recoup his financial losses and loss of face through promotional deals, getting back to work and perhaps dropping a memoir or similar.
Most Joes who are wrongly accused of such crimes don’t have that luxury.
This article was updated at 12.15pm, Saturday.
Aaron McKenna is a businessman and a columnist for TheJournal.ie. He is also involved in activism in his local area. You can find out more about him at aaronmckenna.com or follow him on Twitter @aaronmckenna. To read more columns by Aaron click here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
After hearing the prosecution case in this instance, I couldn’t help but wonder why it was ever allowed to go to court. The DPP who sanctioned it has questions to answer.
Think they originally didn’t run with it when the complaint was made in 2011, but the ‘injured party’ & her mother made an additional complaint further alleging other matters and threatening going to the newspapers if nothing was done about it!! Amazing what a bit of friendly encouragement will do for an aspiring career minded Crown Prosecution Counsel!!
It’s a tough one as too few women press charges when sexually assaulted as it is. There has to be something done though because, as you rightly pointed out – you will always have the ‘no smoke without fire’ brigade.
I know of two cases of bitter ex girlfriends/wives who accused their ex partners of sexually assaulting their child simply because they wanted to cut all ties. These women should face criminal charges in my opinion.
It’s not tough at all. What’s the argument for not granting the accused anonymity?
Speaking of the no-smoke-without-fire brigade, anyone who wants to see prejudice at its most literal should check out #ibelieveher
It sure does! Aside from the negative attention he got with many many people still assuming his guilt even after the verdict (once you’re accused that label will never wash off no matter how many times you’re found not guilty) but it does so much damage to the real victims of abuse! If it were found, in any case of supposed abuse, that the supposed victim fabricated the accusation they should receive the sentence their victim would have received!
There was some high profile case in the Uk a few years ago where after the accused soldiers were found innocent, there was a successful prosecution of the malicious accuser for perverting the course of justice. They received an 18 month sentence.
The only thing with it is you would want to be very sure it was fabricated and have it proven beyond all doubt in a court of law as the last thing you want to do is scare real victims off! 18 months is a joke though!
Any malicious accuser has the same presumption of innocence as the original accused had.
The accused rapist being found innocent is not sufficient for prosecution and real victims should not feel scared of making an accusation. There still needs to be proof of deliberate perverting of the course of justice.
Completely agree. As soon as I heard about this case (amongst so many similar) I was sure it must be true. I feel bad for being so easily convinced. I know “innocent until proven guilty” but its difficult to do that on such an emotive topic. Good luck to this fella, hope the mud doesn’t stick.
Someone text into the kc show on today fm yesterday afternoon giving out that he played r kelly giving r kellys sexually abusive past. Kc got on to the texter on air as r kelly was cleared of all charges. Once openly accused of something so horrific youll always be guilty in someones eyes.
Anybody who still goes on about a persons guilt after they are cleared in court is just showing their own stupidity.
The world has not only a lot of stupid people, the rest can fall in to that trap.
Do try to tell me that you will not subconsciously feel different about the person next time you look at corry st.
I don’t watch it myself but the only feeling I have towards the man is what a poor bastard for having to go through that ordeal. Every mans nightmare.
What about OJ?
The man who played Scott in emmerdale was accused and found innocent of rape on holidays in Spain several years sgo. He also was suspended while the legalities took place. …. he was never offered his job back… I watched him be interviewed and it transpired that the girl was brought to the police the nxt morning by her mother wen she returned happily to her apartment after a night spent with the actor … he never got his career back and his life was ruined…
If all sex crimes in Ireland were to be successfully prosecuted by the state, you couldn’t build a jail big enough to house all the inmates and trial by jury doesn’t always deliver the correct verdict either.
<—- point in case! You are aware of details that we aren't to assume a mans guilt of such a horrendous crime even after he's found not guilty in a court of law?
That smacks of the Star Chamber mentality, tho I hope I’m wrong.
Thats easy for you to say Diamuid
@Jazz: How about we organise a lynch mob on twitter and facbook?
I have some sticks that we can wrap oily rags around and light. You go visit Woodies Garden Center and pick up some pitchforks…
Alan, I see that medieval villager thing is working away in your head. Lol!
How exactly is that easy for me to say???
Irelands laws are totally inadequate in this area. ….i have personal knowledge of a repeat sec offender (convicted in another country) who lives here and gives private school tuition to junior/leaving cert kids in their own homes. I voiced my concerns to local police and was told they couldn’t act without a formal complaint from a victim/parent! what happened to prevention being better than cure? This man has offended for the last 40 + years and convicted in UK, after which he simply moved to Ireland, established himself in community here and offended again last year against a nineteen year old who wont press charges. His wife is still by his side and …..scary…..she works in a daycare center! Only a matter of time…….and i will be first in line to let the parents know that the police were aware of his history. No justice in this country.
Alwynn: If you look at http://www.pobail.ie it says that taken in to consideration are prosecutions in the State OR ELSEWHERE.
If you have evidence of such conviction, then you should provide this to the Garda Vetting Unit or point them to where the evidence lies. It is no good doing this at a local Garda station as they are not doing the vetting. It is a centralised unit.
Omg that’s sick !!!!! I’d go over that stations head I’d onto every td newspaper even English newspaper I would name and shame him
I agree with Aaron’s assessment except for the last bit about ordinary joes finding it harder afterwards.
As the prosecution in this case pointed out to the jury, they needed to separate the actor from the character he portrayed. Michael’s career in corry st depends on his likeability by the audience. It is likely that this incident has damaged this irreparably. While ITV will no doubt bring him back, he will probably quietly have to leave in a few months.
Legal guilt and actual guilt are distinct. Legal not guilty and actual not guilty are different.
In this case the evidence as given by the complainant an chief witness was insufficienty consistent and reliable to be a foundation for a finding of legal guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is interesting that the initial prosecutorial decision not to prosecute was overruled.
You are therefore hinting that you have in your mind, hung, drawn and quartered Michael Le Vell, despite being found not guilty. Just like a medieval lynching villager.
You have just proved the point of this article.
Aaron McKenna should send you a Thank You note!
Peter you have also found Assad guilty of using chemical weapons with absolutely no evidence to support it so I wouldn’t put much stock in your opinion on innocence
I hinted at no such thing. It may suit you to invent such a notion because you wish to vent an emotional outburst over a man who has been found not guilty.
The point I am making is that a verdict of a jury does not determine whether a person actually did or did not do what they are accused of. It is merely a legal determination.
There are many cases in which people have been found guilty of doing something they did not do, conversely, there have been many people who have been found not guilty who have actually done what they were accused of.
It is easy to confuse legal guilt with actual guilt but the two are entirely different.
I have no view at all on Michael Le Vell’s actual guilt guilt or innocence but I think that the notion that he is a victim of unfair prosecution is off the mark.
I have been involved in active campaigns to over turn guilt verdicts in Ireland, one a major cause célèbre, and some of these have been successful. I am amused by the comparison with a “medieval lynching villager”. You show the right outlook to be a trusted juror in an Irish criminal trial.
John, I am not on the jury on Assad and the UN did not see fit to share its evidence with me. Do you have evidence to exonerate Assad and his regime?
It would suit the international community and avoid the escalation of conflict in Syria and beyond to assume that the Assad regime was not responsible. Hopefully, evidence can be found to exculpate Assad and his regime,
By pointing out that there is a difference between legal and actual guilt in response to an article about a man found not guilty, you give people the impression that you believe he is guilty (actual).
You do this on less evidence than the judge an jury had the time to examine.
You do this despite a societal norm equivalent to the legal presumption of innocence – called giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Alan, it’s a pity that you avoided engagement and merely restated your position. You need to vent. Fair enough but you have missed my point due to a lack of comprehension.
It’s a very difficult one!! I’m not sure if his innocence. He was however found not guilty only because the jury couldn’t find his guilty beyond reasonable doubt
A jury of 12 folk found this guy to be not guilty yet you are willing to fly in the face of that based on – based on what Emily? ‘Reasonable doubt’ is the backbone of our law. Are you personally finding him guilty?
The problem is there will always be an ‘emily’ who will have her doubts and won’t agree with the ‘not guilty’ verdict. Regardless of the verdict and the Michael Le Vell being cleared of all charges his life will never be the same. Being a celebrity only adds to the problem He isn’t a ‘simple Joe’ we will forget about a while after he was cleared, he appears on our TV screens every day and all the ‘emilies’ with their little doubtfull minds will hount him forever
You look guilty of a serious crime to me Emily. I can see it in your avatar. It is unfortunate that there is not enough evidence to convict you – at the moment. There is no smoke without fire.
No just unsure.. I know of a child who was abused for 4yrs, special victims detectives found the 8yr olds story to be credible & stated they believed him to be 100% honest but DPP didnt pass the case. This man has access now to other kids, nothing we can do about.. Is he innocent???
I’m unsure , but yes I will have my doubts. Does this make me a bad person?
Sorry if I have an opinion 100% guilty
In the eyes of the law he is innocent Emily. You can have the rule of law or the rule of the mob.
Completely understand what your saying Eamonn. I guess we can trust that justice was served or we can speculate forever!! I hope that both sides can get what ever help they need & get on with their lives
Hmmm I wonder will Sally take him back? Or has she too fallen for the press’s lies? I know she has a face like a stunt man’s knee but she’s def the one that can give Kev the love and support that he needs. Lets keep our fingers crossed…
Can’t wait for Kev’s return…..
Michelle, you know that Emmerdale is only makey-uppey, don’t you?
It’s coronation st.
I was jesting! Duh
He wasn’t “falsely accused” according to the jury. They found him ‘not guilty’, the only other option for them being ‘guilty’. They don’t give a narrative on the case or state an allegation was false. A ‘not guilty’ verdict does is not a declaration that a man has been falsely accused. The jury may have thought he was ‘probably’ guilty but the admissible evidence before them may not have convinced them ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that he was guilty so in that case they must return a verdict of ‘not guilty’. The burden of proof in criminal cases is very high, it’s foolish to think that when the evidence doesn’t reach that very demanding standard that someone is completely innocent of wrongdoing and with the result castigate the alleged victim for making it all up.
Alan,
I’m having trouble following your arguements. Are you saying that we should dispense with trial by jury? Which although infallible does, In my opinion, offer the best solution.
Should we have guilt decided only by Judges who are not infallible themselves.
Definitely by your. Remarks you are giving the impression that Du Val is guilty. What knowledge do you have of the girls. I suppose your next comment could be asking what motive did they have for lying?
Le Vall I don’t watch Corru
I have no particular opinion in relation to his guilt or otherwise. I’m just saying the jury made a particular legal determination in the case. A not guilty verdict is not a definitive finding that somebody did not do something wrong. To believe that it is is indicative of a misunderstanding of the criminal trial process. To give you an example, if this girl sued him in a civil court for what she alleges she did, a court may have, based on the same evidence, found him ‘liable’, or effectively guilty, because a civil court has a lower standard of proof i.e. it decides a case ‘on the balance of probabilities’ as opposed to the criminal trial which was to decide whether he was guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I would be slow to reach the conclusion that someone made a false allegation when an accused person is not convicted in a criminal court on the basis of that allegation.
I would agree, in cases of sexual misconduct the whole thing should be kept under wraps until the verdict is passed – from the press anyway.
People are supposed to be put on trial in a court of law, not the media.
The anonymity benefits the victim too. It can only be seen as a good thing. Why this isn’t the standard everywhere I do not understand.. Seems to be the only thing Ireland has gotten right with regards criminal proceedings in these cases..
Giving somebody the heebie jeebies is a serious crime. Some men have no respect for women. You should address your concerns to ITV. I am sure that you will receive a sympathetic hearing. If not, you can always report him to the police.
Hows that old Rolf Harris song go again?
It’s hard to know what’s going on really, there has been alot of cases now Rolf Harris , ken from corrie too and that other guy that was a children’s tv star bk in 80s , there are two sides nutballs doing this to get close to star or just looking for money, or it can be a case of them really telling the truth , they thing is I feel sorry for the girls who with this not guilty verdict might scare them telling and speaking up in fear they would be found not guilty , always have to keep an open mind , I do however just personally find him in reality a bit creepy … Asides from this he always gave me heebie jeebies for some reason, what about all the kids on the cobbles surely if he was a peado he’s of acted out somehow there ?? Maybe keep an open mind as nobody knows what can happen
So Fiona would you feel better if an innocent man was sent to prison for something he didn’t do .
Or maybe accept that sweet old convention that you’re innocent until proven guilty, but esp if you’re proven innocent?
Gerry, Michael Le Vell was not proven innocent. The verdict was that he was found not guilty of the offence charged. It is an important distinction. In England and in Ireland, the conviction for an offence does not determine if you did or did not actually do the acts on which the conviction is based.
Criminal prosecutions are fallible processes. The accused may be found not guilty even though the accused actually did what he was accused of and vice versa. Judges, Juries, lawyers and witnesses can all get it wrong.
We should not take verdicts of guilty or not guilty too literally.
The justice system is grossly imperfect, that’s a given. It is however all we got right now.
Under this system the guy as you say was found not guilty. If you want to read that as ‘not guilty, but probably not innocent’ then I’ll leave you to musings.
It is that type of ambivalence that allows gossip mongers to see fire where there is only smoke.
A famous Dublin footballer was in a similar position some years back and it was disgusting to see a fine (innocent) human being shunned by small minds.
Gerry, I am certainly not saying that Le Vell is “probably not innocent”. I don’t know what he did or did not do. I have no knowledge of the man’s conduct.
He always gave you heebie jeebies? Well lock him up then.
I thought in England there was only two phrases a jury could use Guilty or Not Guilty, at least it was when I did jury service. The word innocent could not be used by the jury foreman (which I was)”, Scottish courts do have a third option of not proven, which basically gives the police the opportunity to bring the same charges up if new evidence is found
It should be remembered that the original decision of the Crown Prosecution Service as not to prosecute. They only prosecuted after the furore over the Jimmy Saville allegations. This is not a fair basis for a prosecution.
In this country both sides are either anonymous or their names are revealed. In the UK the system is one-sided in that the accuser gets anonymity but not the accused before a trial. This encourages false accusations. Plus the fact they are celebrities means there is a potential financial motive for false allegations of abuse. The UK police seem to be caving into the tabloid press in a way that simply wouldn’t happen in this country. In Ireland the Star newspaper should hang its head in shame for the way it covered the Le Vell trial.
It’s extremely rare for someone to go to full trial in a sex abuse or rape case without there having been some truth in the crime, between Police time/ crisis centre and counsellor involvement with the victim the whole case would fold before a trial unfortunately for the victim the team defending the perpetrator can be far better than state prosecution, ultimately what you have is paedophiles and rapists enjoying a freedom they certainly do not deserve.
have your say