Woman tells star’s sex trial she was in his house twice

A WOMAN who says she engaged in sexual acts with a celebrity when she was 16 has rejected a suggestion that nothing of a sexual nature happened at his home because she never went there.

The man, 40, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 17 at locations in Dublin on dates between August and December 2010.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court previously heard that the complainant initially told the man she was 18.

She gave evidence that she had told him her actual age before they engaged in sexual activity.

It is the State’s case that the man engaged in oral sex on three occasions, once in his workplace and twice in his home, at a time when the complainant was 16, while the man was then 27.

The cross-examination of the woman started on Tuesday and continued yesterday. Morgan Shelley BL, defending, told the woman it was his client’s position that the woman never went to his house and nothing of an ‘intimate or sexual nature’ happened.

The woman said she was in the man’s house twice and that they engaged in sexual acts. She accepted that she couldn’t point out the house to gardaí and that she didn’t recall its exact location. Mr Shelley put it to her that ‘you couldn’t possibly have failed to recognise the house’, to which the woman said she ‘wasn’t paying attention’ when she went to the man’s house for the first time.

Referring to her evidence of meeting the man before a Deadmaus concert on December 14, 2010, Mr Shelley asked the woman if she could be thinking of a concert in 2011, which she rejected.

Mr Shelley noted there was a ‘limited time window’ between the girl finishing school and the start of the concert. She agreed, but said she wasn’t sure she was there for the entire concert.

Mr Shelley put it to the witness that she couldn’t have been in the man’s house on December 14, 2010 as his client would have been in work at a different location. She said: ‘That’s what I remember.’ When asked if it was possible her memory was wrong, the woman said she recalled it ‘quite clearly’.

Defence counsel said his client’s version of events was that the woman was only in his workplace once in January 2011 after she turned 17. She reiterated her evidence that she went to his workplace in August 2010. Mr Shelley said his client’s recollection was that they went for lunch on January 2011 as she had mentioned her recent birthday to him. During lunch, the man said she must be 19, and it was at this point he says she told him she was 17.

The woman insisted they never went for lunch and this conversation didn’t take place. She insisted she visited his workplace only once and it was ‘definitely’ in August 2010. Mr Shelley said his client was ‘put out that you had lied to him about the fact you said you were 18’ and ‘you said “no, I was sweet 16”’.

The woman reiterated that the conversation about her age had taken place by text message during August.

Mr Shelley put it to the woman that ‘nothing of a sexual nature’ occurred between the woman and his client at his workplace, which she rejected. He said his client would say that he was never in the stairwell of that building, as it would have activated a fire alarm, which would have been a ‘cardinal sin’. ‘We did go down a stairway,’ she replied.

Defence counsel suggested that both would have been ‘taking an enormous risk of being caught if they had been engaging in sexual activity in a stairway’ at his client’s workplace. The woman replied: ‘There didn’t seem to be anyone in building when we went there. I guess it was a risk.’

He also put it to the woman that there was ‘nothing remotely flirtatious, intimate or suggestive of relationship’ in the texts between them until February 2012, when she would have been 18. She replied: ‘I don’t know what was said in the messages before. We had a sexual relationship.’

She agreed with defence counsel that her phones from that period had been lost, broken or stolen. She also accepted that she remained in contact with his client on and off via social media until 2020.

The trial continues before Judge Pauline Codd and the jury.

‘We did go down a stairway’