‘You must decide if lies were told’ – rape trial judge
■ Jurors asked ‘to exercise considerable caution’ in deliberations
JURORS were told to consider if “lies” were told in the trial of rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, who are accused of raping a student at a house party.
Paddy Jackson (26) and his teammate Stuart Olding (25) have denied raping the then 19-year-old woman during a house party at Mr Jackson’s home in the early hours of June 28, 2016.
Mr Jackson also denies a charge of sexual assault. Both men claim the activity was consensual. Blane McIlroy (26) denies one count of exposure, while Rory Harrison (25) has pleaded not guilty to perverting the course of justice and withholding information.
Judge Patricia Smyth told the jury it must consider the inconsistencies in the account the complainant gave to a doctor. But she said: “Trauma is often a reason to explain inconsistencies.”
She said the jury must also consider whether the inconsistencies in the defendants’ accounts “amounted to a lie”. But the judge noted: “A person’s recall of the same events may differ.” The jury will resume its deliberations today.
JURORS were told to consider if “lies” were told in the trial of rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, who are accused of raping a student at a house party.
Mr Jackson (26) and his teammate Mr Olding (25) have denied raping the then 19-yearold woman during a house party at Mr Jackson’s home in the early hours of June 28, 2016.
Mr Jackson also denies a charge of sexual assault. Both men claim the activity was consensual.
Blane McIlroy (26) denies one count of exposure, while Rory Harrison (25) has pleaded not guilty to perverting the course of justice and withholding information relating to the incident.
It was the prosecution case that Mr Jackson pushed the woman down on his bed and vaginally raped and digitally penetrated her.
It was alleged that Mr Olding walked into the bedroom, the woman said “please no, not him as well” and she was forced to perform a sex act on him.
The woman gave evidence that Mr McIlroy walked into the room naked and holding his penis.
She decided that it wasn’t happening again and she jumped off the bed and ran out of the room.
It was the defence case that the woman made a false allegation of rape because she regretted getting involved in consensual group sex and feared she may have been filmed.
In relation to inconsistencies in the account the complainant gave to the doctor who forensically examined her, and the account she later gave to police, Judge Smyth told the jury it would decide if trauma could explain them.
She said if it believed the woman lied or deliberately made false allegations, then it must approach her evidence with caution.
The judge took the jury through the evidence of Dr Philip Lavery, who took notes of what the complainant told him. He said she told him she had been vaginally raped by two men, the first raping her when she was on her front and again when she was on her back, and the second raping her vaginally when she was on her back. There was no note of any form of penile or oral rape.
“There is no evidence this was not an accurate account of what was said to the doctor.
“Trauma is often a reason to explain inconsistencies”, said the judge.
“The fact there are inconsistencies might not be a matter of particular importance.
“If you take the view that she lied or deliberately made a false allegation then consequences flow from this.
“If you believe the complainant may have lied then you must exercise considerable caution in how you approach her evidence.
“If you believe she lied or deliberately made false allegations to the doctor you must not rely on any of her evidence, unless there is other and independent evidence to support what she said.”
In relation to the four accused, Judge Smyth told the jury it must consider all of the evidence and consider the case for and against each defendant separately.
The judge also told the jurors they had to determine whether inconsistencies in the defendants’ accounts “amounted to a lie”. Judge Smyth said: “People lie for all sorts of reasons and the defendants are no different.”
Reasons include panic or confusion, the court heard.
“A person’s recall of the same events may differ, particularly when a person has consumed a lot of alcohol,” Judge Smyth said.
The defendants all deny lying, she said.
Judge Smyth said all the defendants had “consumed a considerable amount of alcohol” and this can have an impact on a person’s perception of events and their recall.
The jury was sent out to consider its verdict at 12.40pm yesterday after Judge Patricia Smyth finished her charge to it. The jury is due to resume at 10am today.
In her final words to the jury before it retired to consider its verdict, Judge Smyth said that at this stage she could only accept a unanimous verdict on which all 11 jurors agreed.