THE EVIDENCE JURY DIDN’T GET TO HEAR
‘Gentleman’ Harrison shared sex video with rugby trial defendant
THE man hailed by the woman in the Ulster rugby rape trial as a ‘gentleman’, sent a pornographic video to Stuart Olding just hours after the alleged attack, it has emerged.
The short, but explicit, video of a so-called ‘spit roast’ was sent by Rory Harrison to Mr Olding two hours after they ate lunch at a cafe the morning after having attended the party at Paddy Jackson’s Belfast home.
The video came to light yesterday after the judge who presided over the case agreed to allow details of legal arguments, which took place in the absence
of the jury, be made public. In a series of further revelations, it emerged yesterday that bloodstains on Paddy Jackson’s bedsheets that did not belong to the complainant were airbrushed from pictures shown to the jury.
Also, while jurors were told semen from Stuart Olding was found on the woman’s jeans, they were not told it was found on the crotch area of her jeans.
It has also been revealed that a tweet by the leader of the North’s Alliance Party nearly led to the collapse of the trial.
During the case, which lasted nearly ten weeks, the jury had been shown texts and WhatsApp exchanges between the defendants in the aftermath of the incident, which included Paddy Jackson and his team-mate Mr Olding boasting about ‘spit roasting’.
Blane McIlroy also texted a friend that he had ‘pumped a girl with jacko, roasted her’, the court heard. However, the jurors were not told about the video clip of a consensual threesome – involving unknown people – sent by Mr Harrison to Mr Olding hours after they ate at Soul Food café in Belfast.
It depicted a man having consensual penetrative sex with a woman, while she gave oral sex to another man. The night before Mr Harrison sent the video of the so-called ‘spit-roast’, he had dropped the crying woman home from Mr Jackson’s house in a taxi and told her in a text to ‘keep the chin up you wonderful young woman’.
Mr Harrison also sent the woman a music video in an effort to console her at 5.16am.
In text messages the following morning she told Mr Harrison:
Described Harrison as a ‘gentleman’
‘What happened was not consensual. Thanks for taking me home.’ She said his response to that was: ‘Jesus.’ He added in a later text: ‘I am not sure what to say.’
In her evidence to Belfast Crown Court, the complainant said she had ‘absolutely no complaint’ and described him as a ‘young gentleman’.
She said: ‘I can honestly say that he showed wonderful qualities... he came to my assistance when I needed help.’ She added: ‘He showed the qualities of kindness, total respect and reassurance.’
After legal argument, Judge Patricia Smyth ruled the video, which was not connected to the case, should not be shown to the court. Having considered the issue overnight, she ruled it may have had an adverse effect on proceedings, was irrelevant and could be prejudicial.
Judge Smyth said the question of whether legal, adult pornography is evidence of bad character was a broad issue, with opinions differing depending on age and gender.
‘At this stage, the prejudicial effect of evidence outweighs the probative value,’ the Judge said.
A defence barrister for Paddy Jackson cautioned that if the clip was admitted, his team may have to scour the internet for other clips of group sex. Brendan Kelly QC said: ‘We would be forced to explore whatever we could to adduce other incidents of group sex which involved three or more people where there is no penile penetra- tion. That’s a perfectly proper line of inquiry if that particular video goes before the jury at this stage.’
Ireland and Ulster players Paddy Jackson, 26, and Stuart Olding, 25, were unanimously acquitted of rape last month. Jackson was also found not guilty of sexual assault.
Blane McIlroy, 26, was found not guilty of exposure and Rory Harrison, 25, was acquitted of perverting the course of justice and withholding information.
Prosecutors had said the timing of when the video was shared was noteworthy. Toby Hedworth QC said: ‘The significance of this video is that it is sent by Mr Harrison to Mr Olding just over two hours after all four defendants have met up that lunchtime at Soul Food.’
Later, he added: ‘The video, we submit, provides evidence of what they had been discussing, otherwise it is a remarkable coincidence. We submit this is highly relevant in respect of the overall case, as it was being discussed by all four defendants as to what occurred earlier that same morning, and when one considers, in particular, Mr Olding’s difficulty apparently knowing what Mr Jackson had been doing, and Mr Harrison claiming not to know what had occurred upstairs.
‘There are two sides as to how Mr Harrison was playing this game in the aftermath. It is important that the jury see what Mr Harrison was doing that morning.
‘Was he being concerned genuinely, or was he enjoying with his friends what had gone on after their discussion about it at the Soul Food restaurant? It is highly relevant to this case as a whole but it is particularly relevant to Messrs Olding and Harrison.’
Objections from defence legal teams included argument that the video could amount to prejudicial bad character evidence.
Frank O’Donoghue QC, representing Mr Olding, said there was ‘no evidence’ his client had opened the video. The lawyer added: ‘It was not a video of the actual events of the previous evening.
‘The probative value of adding this material is negligible to the free-standing prosecution case against Mr Olding.’
Gavan Duffy QC, representing Mr Harrison, argued there was ‘no evidence’ of any conspiracy and he suggested the prosecution was making an ‘outrageous speculative connection’. He asked: ‘What’s the relevance?’
Meanwhile, Mr Kelly QC said the sole issue in the case was consent.
‘Although I have not seen it, the fact that one co-defendant sent the other co-defendant not jointly charged, a video of a consensual act is probative of what?’
The sharing of the video emerged after several media outlets took legal action to overturn reporting
restrictions which prevented the publication of legal argument made in the absence of the jury. Restrictions usually fall away when a case concludes because a jury can no longer be prejudiced.
It also emerged that two applications were made to have the jury discharged shortly before it began its deliberations. One of the applications was made by Mr Jackson’s defence team who raised issues about the judge’s pace, tone and delivery of her legal direction.
Rejecting the criticism, Judge Smyth said she had made changes to the wording of her direction at the request of legal teams and was being ‘scrupulously careful’.