Midlands gang rape defendants claim girl consented court told at end of trial

Lawyers for two of the men accused of taking part in the alleged gang rape of a teenage girl have told a jury that their clients believed the girl was consenting to sexual activity.

In the early hours of the morning of December 27, 2016 in a town in the midlands the then 17-year-old girl got into a car with five men, a decision she has told the jury she now believes was “very stupid”. 

The defendants each allegedly sexually assaulted her as the car was driven out of the town. The car was driven to a remote location nearby and three of the defendants, and the fifth man who is not on trial, allegedly raped her at this location one after another.

The jury has heard that two of the defendants were later dropped off at a house back in the town and the car was driven to another location. The woman has said that she asked to be let out of the car but was ignored and that one man raped her for the second time at the same time as a fourth man forced his penis into her mouth.

The defendants, who were aged between 17 and 19 at the time, deny all the charges. Neither they nor the complainant can be identified in accordance with the 1981 Rape Act.

Three weeks of evidence ended on Thursday morning and closing speeches concluded on Friday afternoon, April 1, before Justice Tara Burns and a jury. Justice Burns will begin charging the jury on Monday morning.

Closing his case for the second defendant, Seamus Clarke SC told the jury that they had to consider how the conflict of how the complainant could emphatically say she didn't consent and how his client could emphatically say he was not aware of this.

He said much of that conflict came down to how people communicate and “if we communicate our inner feelings externally to those around us”.

“It’s not just about words, it's about actions, a touch or a glance - something that conveys if you are comfortable,” he said. He said the jury had to consider whether the men really understood if the woman was not consenting.

His client is charged with sexually assaulting the girl on the car journey to the remote location by touching her breast. He is also charged with sexually assaulting her on the later journey to a second location back at the town, falsely imprisoning her in the car at this location and orally raping her in the car while another defendant raped her.

He was also charged with raping her at the remote location, but Justice Burns has directed a verdict of not guilty on this count where the complainant told gardai she was “almost sure” there was not a fifth person who raped her there.

Mr Clarke said his client's position is that he believed the woman was consenting to the first sexual activity. He said his client contended at all times that when the car was parked at the remote location he walked off alone and that when he came back the others locked him out of the car and there was joking about that.    

This defendant later told gardai, when confronted with DNA evidence showing the presence of his semen on the girl's clothes, that he had masturbated himself when he had gone off alone. He said the girl later put her hand down his pants on the journey back into town.

Counsel said his client was given consent to the sexual activity on the way back but decided not to go through with it. Mr Clarke said the complainant's own evidence was that his client asked her did she want oral sex and she remarked that this was the first time somebody had sought her consent.

She testified that she said no, while Mr Clarke's client contends that she said yes but that he then “baulked” at going through with it when he recalled that the others had already had sex with her.

Mr Clarke said that his client contended that the alleged oral rape at the second location didn't take place.

He said his client also contends that the woman was free to leave the car at all times and that he didn't restrict her liberty. The woman has said she was blocked on both sides of the back seat.

Mr Clarke asked the jury to consider if the woman had “an internal view that she could continue to convince them that she is consenting but it didn't manifest itself” to them and that they therefore didn't see any “red flag”.

He asked jurors to consider was there any reason to doubt the prosecution case that his client knew there was no consent or was reckless as to whether there was consent.

“Could it be reasonably possible that he believed there was consent?” he said.

Hugh Hartnett SC told the jury that it is his client's case that he did not have penetrative sex with the girl and did not ejaculate in the car. His client is accused of sexually assaulting her in the moving car by touching her genital area and by forcing her to masturbate him.

His client is also charged with sexually assaulting and raping the girl in the parked car at the remote location. He said his client's case is that he thought she was “up for it” and consenting when he touched her in the parked car and was grinding up against her.

The accused's account is that he then got a feeling that it was wrong and that she may not be consenting so he stopped and got out of the car, having not had penetrative sex or ejaculated.

Mr Hartnett said that the DNA evidence supports his client's case. He said DNA analysis did not provide any evidence of the presence of his client's semen on his client's underwear, on the car seats or on the girl's clothing.

He said that this evidence casts doubt on admissions made by his client to gardai where he said that the girl gave him “a hand-job” and he ejaculated.

He said this admission came after hours of interviews in which he repeatedly told gardai this didn't happen and after a 16 minute period during which he was in the interview room with gardai before the cameras and audio recording devices were turned on.

He said that his client then told gardai that he changed his account because he was being told by “everyone saying that I did get it like”. His client later again states that “I was pretty sure I didn't get a hand-job, everyone is saying that..” and at this point the interview is abruptly terminated, counsel submitted.

“The interview is stopped because it looks like he is going to spill the beans that the only reason he is saying this is that he is being told by the gardai to say it,” Mr Hartnett said. He told the jury that a number of garda witnesses testified that the “the interruption shouldn't have happened”.

Mr Hartnett said that his client's sudden change of mind came about as a result of persuasion by gardai during the unrecorded time period beforehand. He said if the jurors thought gardaí would never do that then they should not be on the jury.

He said the garda evidence would have it that gardai do everything by the book at all times. “You must bring your everyday knowledge of the world and scepticism to this issue,” he said

He said the allegation of rape against his client is based on evidence in which the woman says “its all a bit of blur” and told jurors they shouldn't be happy to convict someone on that evidence.

Jury told not to judge morality of events in Midlands gang rape trial

He said the evidence that after the alleged rapes the woman, who had lost her mobile phone earlier before meeting the men, got annoyed about wanting to borrow a phone and “snapped at” one of the men struck him as strange.