‘Mortified… she told lies to save face’
THE woman allegedly raped by two Ulster and Ireland rugby players lied to save face, the jury at Belfast Crown Court was told yesterday.
In his closing submission, counsel for Blane McIlroy, who denies exposing himself to the woman, said lies were built on lies.
‘What had she to gain from telling an untruth?’ he asked.
‘The simple thing, in literature as in life, is that lies do not start off necessarily as a malicious intent to cause harm to others, but lies build on lies.
‘If you have a sense that you are about to be shamed on a network which your friends access, your first reaction is, “How do you deal with that shame?” and mostly it is “How do I save face?”
‘And that’s the reaction she had because she said that in her ABE [achieving best evidence] interview. She was mortified because of her foresight as to what the consequences would be.’
The lawyer said the momentum of the woman telling her friends about the alleged rape led to the complaint being made to police.
And, pressing the point further, he said: ‘What had she to gain? ‘The answer is her reputation.’ Arthur Harvey QC spent almost two hours addressing the jury who have listened to eight weeks of evidence.
Drawing his speech to a close, he said: ‘When you look at the facts in relation to Mr McIlroy in this case, you could never be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Almost the reverse. There is neither a hook nor a hinge upon which you could hang any doubt upon his innocence.’
Earlier he outlined what he called a ‘volume of inconsistencies and contradiction’ in accounts the woman gave to friends, medics, police and in court. He suggested she was an ‘unreliable’ witness, providing ‘a variety’ of answers and ‘narratives’ about what went on in Paddy Jackson’s bedroom during the early hours of June 28, 2016.
‘Which is true?’ asked Mr Harvey. ‘Is it the last account? Is it the middle account? Or is it the first account?’
By contrast, he claimed: ‘Mr McIlroy has told the truth.
‘The truth is simply not compatible with the account of [the complainant].’
Referencing prosecution allegations that Mr McIlroy had ‘delivered the wrong lines’ after allegedly concocting a cover-up with his friends a day after the alleged assault, the lawyer said: ‘What is wrong here is that the theory is full of paradoxes.’
He said it was unlikely anyone would risk incriminating themselves just to protect friends.
‘What rational, reasonable, sensible, intelligent individual would present himself in the police station to give an account before he knew what any of the allegations are specifically against him?
‘To incriminate himself in a potentially much more serious charge? Quite simply it does not bear examination.’
Earlier, the court was told that when Mr McIlroy walked into the police station on June 30, 2016: ‘His life changed… irrevocably… There is nothing that can restore the last 20 months of his life.’
He said Mr McIlroy had been unable to finish his degree in the United States but was ‘not looking for sympathy’ but rather ‘for his legal entitlement’.