Jackson tells how night of drinking went into next day

THE prosecution barrister suggested to Paddy Jackson he anticipated that he would accept that “being a gifted sportsman” was not a defence in the charges he faces.

“Eh, no,” the Ireland rugby international replied.

“And being involved in charitable work is not a defence,” Toby Hedworth QC continued.

“No, it’s not,” Mr Jackson replied.

“And being drunk or very drunk is not a defence to the charges you face,” Mr Hedworth put it to him, and again Mr Jackson said no.

“But being drunk is perhaps an explanation for the charges you face, is it not?” said the barrister.

“Em, sorry, what do you mean?” queried Mr Jackson.

In the most intense day of the trial so far, the Ulster rugby player took the stand.

For a full hour and 35 minutes, his own barrister Brendan Kelly QC had brought him through his own evidence – starting out with his early rugby career, which had begun at the age of six with mini rugby with Belfast Harlequins.

He had always played a year or two ahead of his age, he had agreed.

At the time these allegations were made, he had been “the happiest man in Belfast”, having just returned from Ireland’s tour in South Africa, having won one match out of the series of three – a disappointing result but happy with his own performance.

He and his friends were planning a holiday in Portugal but had not got around to booking an Airbnb, he said.

At the time, he received the phone call from then Ulster director of rugby Les Kiss telling him the police wanted to speak to him and that it sounded “grave”, he had been ordering pancakes for breakfast at a café with Stuart Olding, he told Mr Kelly.

As the cross-examination began, the courtroom sat in the silence of total concentration, entirely focused on the rugby player sitting squarely on the witness stand, in casual trousers and a jumper.

“The difficulty about the meeting in Soul Food was that at least three of you had been drinking for effectively 24 hours after being able to catch a little sleep,” began Mr Hedworth.

“Eh, yep,” conceded Mr Jackson.

“Soul Food didn’t mark much of a pause in events, did it, because three of you carried on drinking later on in the day.”

“Yes,” agreed Mr Jackson. “Through the evening.” Again the rugby player agreed. “That night,” said Mr Hedworth, adding: “Started again the next day and through the night.

“And so whereas there might be hope amongst you and your friends that you had a consistent story together, not everyone remembered what they were supposed to be saying, did they?” Mr Hedworth put it to him sharply.

Mr Jackson disagreed. “Because Mr McIlroy’s version of events does not sit at all with what you have told us and what you have told police, does it?” said the law yer.

“No,” said Mr Jackson. It was put to him that he had disputed to Arthur Harvey, barrister for Blane McIlroy, that he had been “hammered” but accepted he had been very drunk on the night and Mr Jackson agreed.

On the CCTV footage taken which showed him leaving the nightclub, Mr Hedworth said he did not mean to be rude but he had looked “half cut”.

“Yeah, I think I look kind of dopey,” agreed Mr Jackson.

“And so that night, you and three of your male friends end up back at your house with four young women,” Mr Hedworth said. “Yeah,” Mr Jackson replied. “Four attractive young women,” Mr Hedworth said.

“Yeah,” said Mr Jackson again.

“Did you have any expectations of what the night would have in store with those four attractive young women,” the barrister asked him.

“No, I didn’t,” said the rugby player.