A jury has failed to agree verdicts in a rape trial involving three young men who say they had consensual sex with a teenage girl in a car six years ago.
It was the State’s case that the then 17-year-old girl was raped in turn by each of the accused in a car at a hotel car park after going for a drive with them. The three defendants, who were aged 17 and 18, denied any wrongdoing.
After a three week trial at the Central Criminal Court and having deliberated for just over nine hours, the jury of six men and six women told Justice Melanie Greally today that it could not reach a verdict.
Ms Justice Greally had instructed the jury yesterday afternoon that she could accept a majority verdict on which ten or more jurors agreed.
Shortly after 2pm this afternoon, she told jurors that it was open to them to return verdicts of disagreed if they had each come to a final position on the charges and ten or more of them were not in agreement. About 15 minutes later the jury returned to the court room and returned verdicts of disagreed on all eight counts.
The first defendant, 22, had pleaded not guilty to rape and sexual assault. A second defendant, 23, had pleaded not guilty to rape, oral rape and two counts of sexual assault. The third defendant, 23, had pleaded not guilty to rape and oral rape.
The offences are alleged to have occurred on 20 December 2017 at a hotel car park in the Leinster area when two of defendants were aged 17, one had just turned 18 and the complainant was aged 17.
Ms Justice Greally adjourned the case for mention to 28 April next.
In her closing speech, prosecuting counsel Alice Fawsitt SC said that complainant’s evidence was that she said no to the defendants’ requests for sex and that they did not listen to her.
Ms Fawsitt suggested the defendants thought the woman “was consenting to sex” once she got into the car, but the complainant believed they were going for a drive.
“Getting into a car with four lads is not consent to sex with one, two or three of them,” she said.
In their closing addresses, defence counsel suggested there were inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence which affected her credibility as a witness.
In his closing speech Michael O’Higgins SC, defending the first defendant, said his client’s evidence was not “if you don’t scream rape, there’s consent,” but “no means no”. He told the jury there is a “particular set of circumstances” which “we say commences in a consensual way, unfolds in a particular way and it’s not rape”.
Garnet Orange SC, defending the second defendant, submitted that the prosecution’s case against his client had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He asked if it is plausible that the woman was raped in succession by three men and did not try to get away.
Mr Orange asked the jury to imagine themselves as “a 17-year-old girl who has possibly made a catastrophically bad decision”. He suggested there is an “easy solution which wipes slate clean”.
Mr Nicholas SC, defending the third defendant, said it would be “unfair to distill” his client’s evidence to “if she doesn’t scream, it’s not rape”. He suggested the woman did not take opportunities to be rescued because there was “nothing to be rescued from”.
Mr Nicholas suggested the woman “regretted” events of that night, “but it wasn’t rape”.
Under the 1981 Rape Act anyone charged with a rape offence is entitled to anonymity unless and until they are convicted. The complainant remains at all times entitled to anonymity unless she chooses to waive this entitlement and nothing can be published that would identify her.
The trial had run at the Central Criminal Court since March.
Jury in rape trial fails to agree verdicts
Source: Viral Trends Report
0 Comments