Jury unable to reach verdict in toilet rape trial

THE jury in the trial of a man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl and forcing her to perform oral sex on him failed to reach a verdict after three-and-a-half hours deliberation yesterday.

After around three hours of deliberating, the jury was told it no longer had to reach a unanimous verdict and that a 10-2 or 11-1 majority would suffice. However, the jury later indicated it would not be able to agree a majority verdict even if given more time.

“I understand you are satisfied you are not going to agree,” said Mr Justice Paul Carney. “I discharge you from further consideration of the case and I thank you for your careful consideration of the case.”

He ordered that the case be adjourned to the next list for the fixing of dates for trials at the Central Criminal Court.

Earlier yesterday, Mr Justice Carney said in his address to the jury before sending them out to deliberate: “It is for the jury to decide if the evidence does in fact corroborate the lady who is making the complaint. There is no evidence capable of amounting to corroboration.”

Tom Creed, SC, defence, emphasised the fact that other people drinking in the flat on the day of the alleged incident in May 2008 did not hear anything from the bathroom where the alleged rape occurred.

Mr Creed referred to the complainant’s claim that she shouted at the accused to stop. Despite the walls consisting of nothing more than stud partitions, nobody heard anything, he said.

The complainant and defendant both described being in the bathroom together but gave different accounts of what happened.

She said she was in the bathroom when the accused came in and pulled down her jeans.

The accused said he was in the bathroom when the girl came in.

Cross-examined by Marjorie Farrelly, SC for the prosecution, the accused said that when he may have accidentally touched the complainant’s breast as he was leaving the bathroom but that if anything like that happened it was not in a sexual way.

Ms Farrelly said: “You were almost two different generations. She was 13. You were a 21-year-old working man... Was it unusual for you to be giving her drink?”

“Everyone was socialising,” he replied. “I wasn’t pressuring her to drink.” The complainant said he gave her five bottles of beer.