Belfast rape trial: Afterwards, there was much slapping of broad backs

Everyone was standing around on the landing, agitated, waiting. Then there was movement. It was 12.20pm. Paddy Jackson was heard to say one word: "Verdict."

Everyone poured back into their appointed places and absolute silence fell in Belfast's Crown Court 12. Then came the call of "All rise" and Judge Patricia Smyth entered. She said she had received a note from the foreman of the jury. There was a unanimous verdict on all counts. The judge then issued a stern warning to those in the gallery.

This was a difficult time for the chairman of the jury, she said: “Have respect for that.” Otherwise, she said, she would clear the court. She called in the jury, as she has done each day that this court has been at hearing over the last nine weeks, and she called on the defendants to stand. The foreman of the jury stepped forward and responded to Judge Smyth’s request for the verdict in respect of each of the six charges: “Not guilty.”

The defendants filed out into the gallery, the defendants no longer, four young men, free to go

Paddy Jackson was found not guilty of rape and not guilty of assault. Stuart Olding was found not guilty of rape. Blane McIlroy was found not guilty of exposure. Rory Harrison was found not guilty of withholding evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The defendants filed out into the gallery, the defendants no longer, four young men, free to go. The judge discharged the jury and said they would not have to serve again. This was, she said, probably the most difficult trial a jury had ever had to preside over in the history of Northern Ireland.

Why a celebrity rape trial is a ‘monster that feeds itself’

---

Stuart Olding: ‘I am sorry for the hurt that was caused to the complainant’

---

Unsolved mystery of vanished Greystones local puzzles gardaí

---

Tears and smiles

Outside in the bright corridors the families of the men clustered about them. Lawyers beamed and leaned on the walls. There were tears and smiles, hugs, handshakes and much slapping of broad backs. Ties were adjusted, emotionally. A barrister stood bareheaded, his wig hung over the back of his wheelie suitcases. “Congratulations son. Never in doubt,” one man said to one of the young men. The journalists stood back, then filed out into the cold spring afternoon to await statements. “This’ll be a scrum,” someone said. Hundreds of people, some of them from the media, all armed with cameras, were waiting avidly on the concourse. As Jackson emerged, someone whooped, and was hushed. There were a few cheers. A young woman stood holding aloft a placard on which was written: “I still believe her.” A man approached them. “You’ve lost, ladies,” he said. “You have to accept the verdict of a court of law.”

I want to acknowledge publicly that although I committed no criminal offence I regret deeply the events of that evening

Surrounded by a tight ring of reporters, Jackson thanked the judge and the jury. He thanked his parents for being there every day. Out of respect for his employers, he said, he would make no further comment. His solicitor spoke of a “common sense” verdict. Paddy had been consistent in his denials, he said. “Consistency was never a feature of the complainant.” He denounced angrily the “vile commentary on social media” that had “polluted” the process. His client’s priority now was to get back to work, back to the rugby pitch “to represent is province and his country”.

Different note

Stuart Olding’s solicitor, standing beside him, struck a different note. Everyone was in a state of “heightened emotion” he said and so he intended to read a statement written by his client. He too thanked the judge, the jury, his lawyers and his family. However, he also said: “I want to acknowledge publicly that although I committed no criminal offence I regret deeply the events of that evening. I want to acknowledge that the complainant came and gave her perception of those events. I am sorry for the hurt caused to the complainant.” He did not agree with her perception and maintained as he always had that everything that happened was consensual. He had told the truth. It had never been his intention to cause “any upset” that night. He was “fiercely proud” to have represented his province and his country and wanted to prove himself again.

At a PSNI press conference soon afterwards the Detective Inspector in charge of the case said that she had spoken with the complainant. She was “upset and disappointed” at the outcome of the case. A journalist mentioned that she had been cross examined for seven days. “Eight days, it was eight days,” the officer corrected. Asked if, in light of the verdict, the young woman had expressed regret at having reported it to the police, the Detective Inspector said, “No.”