Jury’s out on what Giggs trial says about new law

WITH women outnumbering men on the jury at a rate of almost two to one, Ryan Giggs’ defence team had reason to fear the worst when the judge called them in. As it transpired the stereotypical assumption of genders supporting one another in the minefield of soured intimate relationships was blown apart when the jury admitted it couldn’t reach a majority verdict.

Clearly the female jurists who sat through 12 days of ugly and toe-curling testimony about bust ups in hotel rooms and rows about infidelity, did not overwhelmingly find ex-girlfriend Kate Greville’s victimhood any more believable than Mr Giggs’ innocence.

From this country it may be hard to appreciate the dazzling superstar status Giggs has enjoyed since he was a teenager, particularly in his hometown. Giggs’ fame was like a shield during the trial, especially when Alex Ferguson took to the stand to remind the court of his protegé’s glory days while testifying to his ‘fantastic temperament’.

DID Fergie’s glowing reference blind some jurists to the evidence before them? Or did they feel that their hero had suffered enough in terms of reputational damage to save him from the metaphorical gallows?

Over the course of the trial, the sporting legend became a laughing stock; his cringey poem where he referred to his manhood as a totem pole was sneered at as much as his non-stop bombarding his girlfriend with alternatively gushing or threatening texts.

Nor did his obsession with loading his dishwasher in a precise fashion chime with his iconic stature.

There are also issues of law. Coercive control is a relatively new law which loosely covers the psychological effects of domestic abuse, broadening the definition of the latter beyond violence to include situations where a spouse or partner is trapped in a relationship or is subjected to a persistent pattern of threatening behaviour, without physical abuse.

Not enough of the jury were convinced that coercive control was a feature of their on-off six-year relationship.

While domestic violence can be clear cut, it can be hard to distinguish between the mechanisms of coercive control and the toxic behaviour that can be a feature of relationships where partners indulge in wellrehearsed emotional blackmail or mind games to assert their position and settle disputes.

Some of the evidence suggested Greville revelled as much as Giggs in the dramas of their relationship.

The jury heard that a physical fight between the couple in a hotel whereupon Greville was dragged naked out into the corridor was a prelude to ‘rough sex’. Afterward Greville texted Giggs that ‘my sex bruise is coming out nice too’.

GIGGS helped her in other ways and gave her clients for her new PR business. On the night of their infamous row when it was alleged he headbutted her, her sister Emma was staying in his mansion. Giggs called at his neighbour’s house before the row, begging her for help or to call the police.

Greville says she was so embarrassed by their fights, she made up stories about rough sex to explain her bruises. She also said she was ashamed of always going back to Giggs.

A colleague in Dubai testified that Giggs’ incessant texting was so intense they had to turn off the server so Kate could get on with her work. He often turned up unannounced at her office.

Ultimately Greville failed to persuade the jury that she was a slave to his controlling ways. The jury is still out on whether this is a setback for a new law that attempts to address the full reality of domestic violence or an endorsement of its effectiveness.