‘I was extremely unsettled... I’d just been raped’ Alleged victim grows weary after gruelling week being questioned in court includes her underwear being shown
‘I’M SORRY if this is in any way distressing. It is important that we show the items of clothing.”
The barrister for Paddy Jackson spoke, as a number of rustling brown paper evidence bags were produced in court.
First, a pair of white trousers was displayed solemnly to judge and jury.
It took some time before they were taken around the room by a female court usher who was wearing blue latex gloves.
Next came the black sparkly top the young woman at the centre of this rape trial had worn on the night of the alleged attack.
“Perhaps you can confirm that there is clear marking on the inside surfaces of the top which was caused by presumably it coming into contact with tanning,” Brendan Kelly QC for Mr Jackson said.
“It’s a high-necked top so when you’re taking it off, it catches makeup,” she explained.
The clothes had been produced in court because she had told police her trousers had been covered in blood.
Also, because on the morning after the alleged attack, the young woman had sent a text to her friend saying: “Like I hadn’t even shaved my legs/had only tanned the bottom of them and my arms. No way I was ready or up for f ****** anything.”
She told Mr Kelly that in addition to this, she had also tanned a small area of her back where a slit in the top displayed skin.
The barrister asked her if there was any reason she had not told her friend that she had tanned that part of her body too.
“The point I was making is that I had not tanned my whole body – it was patchy,” she told him.
“It looks ridiculous if you haven’t tanned your whole body.”
Next came the underwear she had worn that night, the young woman blushing profusely as they were produced, as discreetly as possible, displayed flat on the brown paper bag by the usher.
The young woman had earlier told the court that she had been bleeding after the alleged attack.
She initially thought it was her period, but then a medical examination found she had been injured.
Mr Kelly put it to her that there was blood on the thinnest part of the pants and asked why this was so – if she had not put them on after the alleged attack, but had put them back in her pocket as she claimed.
“Because I wiped myself, I was aware I was bleeding,” she said with quiet dignity.
For the 21-year-old woman at the centre of this trial, this was clearly one of the most difficult and painful parts of the hearing to date.
Paddy Jackson (26) and his Ulster Rugby teammate Stuart Olding (24) are both standing trial at Belfast Crown Court, accused of raping the woman at the same time following a night out in the city in June 2016.
Both men have denied the charge, while Mr Jackson has been charged with, and denies, a further charge of sexual assault.
Also appearing with Mr Jackson and Mr Olding are Blane McIlroy (26), from Royal Lodge Road, Belfast, who has been charged with one count of exposure, and Rory Harrison (25), from Manse Road, who is facing charges of perverting the course of justice and withholding information.
The men deny all of the charges against them.
The second week of the hearing saw a lengthy and forensic cross-examination of the young woman at the hands of barristers for Mr Jackson, Mr Olding and Mr Harrison.
Cross-examination by the barrister for Mr McIlroy is scheduled to begin on Monday.
Dressed in a shirt and with her hair in a pony tail, the young woman became emotional several times when the crucial issue at the heart of this case was probed by Mr Kelly in his cross-examination, when he addressed the problem of consent.
He asked her about her earlier statement that it hadn’t been much of a party.
He said: “You had music, you had drink if you wanted it, you had company if you wanted it – so what was wrong with that party?”
She replied: “Yes, I thought there’d be a lot more people there,” adding it wasn’t the sort of after-party she was used to.
So why not ring your friends and tell them to come, he suggested.
“I didn’t think it was appropriate because it wasn’t my house,” she replied.
“So there was nothing wrong with the party,” said Mr Kelly.
He suggested she was “fixated” on Paddy Jackson and had been “staring at him all night” during the party.
The young woman denied this vehemently. She had kissed Mr Jackson, she admitted – but consensual kissing was not consent for anything else, she added.
She denied greatly his claim that she had “invented” details of the alleged attack because she had been in an “intoxicated and excited state” that night and had engaged in sexual activity and was afraid it would end up on social media.
That’s what had driven her on to “running with this lie”, he said.
Her response was slow and measured: “No, this is not a lie, Mr Kelly,” she told him.
To Frank O’Donoghue QC, for Mr Olding, she said she had been “handled like a piece of meat” during the events that night.
“There wasn’t one bit of my body that hadn’t been touched,” she said.
ON Thursday, she was probed on claims by Mr Harrison that at one stage of the night in the sitting room, he had looked over a friend’s shoulder during a conversation and noticed the complainant on the sofa and formed the view that she was looking at Mr Jackson.
“Given what you’ve said of your memory of the night, he might be right?” asked Gavin Duffy QC, for Mr Harrison.
But the young woman denied the claims.
He again put it to her that if she could not recall staring at
Mr Jackson and if she
‘You agree with me that some parts of the evening you do remember and some, I think, your memory is hazy,’ Mr Duffy begun. ‘Yes,’ she said
admitted that her memory was hazy, his client might well be right.
“He could well be right about that – but he’s also sitting in the dock,” she said
crisply. Now in the witness box for the sixth day, it was clear that the young woman had grown weary. “You agree with me that some parts of the evening you do remember and some, I think, your memory is hazy,” Mr Duffy had begun.
“Yes,” she said.
“And some parts you don’t have any memory of, is that fair?” he asked. Leaning forward in her seat for emphasis she said: “I think I’d use the word hazy.” She had previously told the court that Mr Harrison was “really good” and that he did “absolutely nothing wrong,” he put it to her.
She agreed. “I have absolutely no complaint with him. He took me home and I’m grateful for that,” she said.
Mr Harrison had said that she had been “crying into yourself” and had been “unsettled” during that taxi journey.
“I was extremely unsettled yes, I’d just been raped,” she told him firmly.
Mr Harrison had brought her home in a taxi and taken her to the front door, he said.
“I think he might’ve given a hug,” the barrister suggested and she agreed that he had.
His texts the next day after she told him that what had happened in the bedroom was non-consensual gave the impression that this had come as a surprise, he said to her.
“It would seem that way, yes,” she said.
He put it to her that Mr Harrison had met her at the top of the stairs as she was leaving Mr Jackson’s bedroom, fully clothed but this she did not recall, she told the court, adding some time later: “No, I don’t agree with that.”
The trial continues at Belfast Crown Court.