Eleanor Donaldson: What is a trial of the facts?

Former DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has been found guilty of 18 child sex abuse charges, including one count of rape.

The jury also delivered their verdict against his co-accused, Lady Eleanor Donaldson, who faced five charges, including four related to aiding and abetting.

However, due to an unusual legal mechanism used to address the charges she faced, the jury could not find her guilty, in the same way they did her husband, and instead found that she "did the acts" when delivering their verdicts.

This is because she faced a trial of the facts after being found unfit for a conventional trial on mental health grounds.

Here's what a trial of the facts entails and what it means for Eleanor Donaldson, including that she cannot be given a prison sentence.

A trial of the facts is an option that is open to prosecutors if a court determines that a person is unfit to stand trial and criminal proceedings cannot go ahead.

It takes the place of a criminal trial and is used to determine whether an accused committed the acts alleged.

It cannot result in a conviction, but if the court is not satisfied that the accused committed the acts alleged, then he/she will be acquitted.

The procedure is allowed for in legislation by Article 49A of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

The mechanism is not used often but one high-profile example was in the trial of former IRA leader Ivor Bell in 2019.

In some ways, it is similar to normal criminal trial - the prosecution puts its evidence against the defendant before a judge and jury in a courtroom.

However, perhaps the key difference, is that the accused does not play a part in proceedings, and does not even need to be in court.

That was the case with Eleanor Donaldson, who was not present on any day of the four-week trial in which evidence was heard against her and her husband.

However, in a trial of the facts the accused will be represented by a legal team and their lawyers can question the witnesses, challenge the evidence and make legal submissions on their behalf.

Ian Turkington KC represented Eleanor Donaldson during her trial of the facts, cross-examining witnesses and issuing closing remarks on behalf of his client towards the end of the trial.

Then there is the major differences in what the outcome can be in a trial of the facts.

Instead of being asked to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the jury are asked to decide whether or not the accused committed the offence with which they were charged.

The focus is on what they are alleged to have physically done - not their state of mind at the time.

In a normal criminal trial, a jury would be invited to decide whether or not a defendant had the mental faculties required to be guilty of the offence as well.

The standard of proof remains the same - a jury must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts alleged.

The accused cannot be convicted but they can be acquitted if the jury decide they didn't commit the acts alleged.

The court does not have the option of a prison sentence in a trial of the facts.

Instead they can issue a treatment order or an absolute discharge.

A treatment order covers medical care that the judge can use in place of sentencing, as set out by legislation. These are mainly designed to protect the public.

An individual can be committed to hospital, they can be subject to a guardianship order or they can be subject to a supervision and treatment order.

If none of those are required, the defendant would be absolutely discharged.

This means the defendant committed the offence, but there is no punishment or order of any substance and they are free to go.