Daily Mirror (Northern Ireland)
RUGBY RAPE TRIAL: JUDGE SUMS UP Jury must decide if she consented or she submitted
THE judge presiding over the rape trial of rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding yesterday told the jury they must decide whether their alleged victim consented or submitted.
The jury had been tasked with reaching a verdict on six counts of criminal charges.
Judge Patricia Smyth told the eight men and three women: “I’m now going to explain to you what the prosecution has to prove in respect to each count on the indictment and what the laws mean.
“Count one is a count of rape and it relates only to Patrick Jackson. The prosecution must prove three things beyond reasonable doubt.”
She told the jury they are that: Jackson intentionally used his penis to penetrate the complainant. It is not necessary that penetration is complete or that there was any ejaulation
The complainant did not consent to that penetation, and
Jackson did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting when he penetrated her.
Judge Smyth said: “Patrick Jackson denies that he penetrated [the complainant’s] vagina with his penis. [She] has told you that he did.”
“Consent has a particular meaning.
BELFAST CROWN COURT YESTERDAY
A woman consents if she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
“[The complainant] told you she did not consent. Patrick Jackson told you that not only did she consent, but that she instigated it.
“When considering the issue it is important to draw a distinction between consent and submission.
“Consent in some situations may be given enthusiastically, whereas in others it is given with reluctance, but nevertheless it is still consent.
“However, where a woman is so overcome by fear that she lacks any capacity either to give consent or to resist, that woman does not consent but is submitting to what takes place.
“The prosecution does not have to prove that a woman’s submission was induced by fear or force.
“Nor does the prosecution have to prove a woman resisted physically or that she did not consent.
“In deciding if [the complainant] consented or whether she merely submitted to something she did not want, you should apply your combined good sense, your experience and your knowledge of human behaviour and modern behaviour to all the relevant facts including your conclusion about what happened earlier between them in the bedroom.
“The morals of any person involved in this trial are completely irrelevant.
“You must not allow yourself to be influenced by any view. You must consider all the evidence and decide whether you are sure of the defendants’ guilt in each of the counts.”
“Emotion and prejudice will have no part to play in your deliberations.
“You are the sole judges of the facts. It is for you to decide what evidence you accept and what evidence you reject. You will form your own judgment. You must decide the case only on the evidence presented before you. There is no stereotype for a rape, a rapist or a victim of rape. There is also no stereotype for how someone reacts if they are the victim of a sexual crime.
“Any person who has been raped will have undergone trauma.”
Jurors were urged not to assume that because someone was distressed they were telling the truth. Judge Smyth said: “The morals of any person involved in this trial are completely irrelevant. You must not allow yourself to be influenced by any view.
“You must be firmly convinced or sure of the defendants’ guilt before you can find him guilty of any offence.
“But, you do not have to be certain of guilt.”
She added if the jurors were “firmly convinced” they must return a guilty verdict. However, if they were “not sure one way or the other”, then they must return a verdict of not guilty.
The jury is on a short break before the judge takes them through information on the burden and standard of proof they will need to adhere to as they decide on the verdicts.