Alleged rape victim denies sex was consensual

A Clare woman has denied under cross-examination that she had consensual sex with her ex-partner the night he allegedly raped her at gunpoint.

The woman insisted her ex-partner had raped her twice earlier that night after breaking into her home and though she agreed to have sex with him a final time before leaving the house, she said she felt she did so under “extreme duress”.

She told Mr John Phelan SC, defending, that his client had asked her to have sex with him a third time and she’d replied: “I will if you want me to”, despite also saying she thought it inappropriate.

She told the court she made “no apology” for this because her compliance resulted with them leaving the house.

The 44-year-old man, who is originally from England, pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to three counts of rape, two counts of anal rape, two counts of oral rape and one count each of false imprisonment, threatening to kill by shooting, threatening to disfigure with a knife, aggravated burglary and possessing a shotgun with intent to endanger life.

He pleaded guilty in December 2008 to assaulting the woman, then 22 weeks pregnant, but denies hitting her with the gun. All the offences are alleged to have occurred at her Clare home on September 9, 2007.

The woman said she told the man not to hurt the baby “between punches” during the initial assault but agreed she did not express this concern while he allegedly raped her on three occasions that night.

She referred to photographs in court to show marks left on her eye and forehead from being struck with the gun.

She said her ex-partner put the barrel of the gun to her face, poked her under the eye and hit her twice on the forehead. She said: “It was hard, it was sore and that bruise stayed for weeks.”

The woman challenged Mr Phelan’s suggestion that his client never hit her with the firearm, asking him if he would call it “a gentle kiss with the butt end of the gun”.

She agreed her ex-partner later apologised for punching her in the mouth when he initially burst into her bedroom but said she believed a lot of his regret was “based on the fact he’s in so much trouble” over the incident.

She agreed she “entertained” the idea of stabbing the man with a spare set of house-keys by the bed as he allegedly raped her and that she’d thought about jumping out the window to escape the attack, but denied it was “highly unlikely” she could have “been able” to formulate these thought processes.

She said the man informed her a short while after the first rape that it was time to rape her again.

The woman denied that nearly all the “rows” she had with her ex-partner were “as a direct result” of her excessive drinking.

The woman told Mr Phelan that it was “absolutely incorrect” to suggest that “99%” of the “rows” with her ex-partner were due to her alcohol intake.

She denied she was “drinking to excess” during the relationship when counsel put it to her that his client had been attending an alcohol support group to cope with her drinking.

She said she and her ex-partner “rarely argued under the influence” and denied she had gone to bed drunk and fully clothed the night of the alleged rape.

Mr Phelan put it to the woman that it was “highly unusual” not to know if she had taken off her trousers when she told him she was not sure what she wore to bed the night of the alleged incident.

Counsel suggested that this statement implied she was drunk going to bed.

The woman denied this and explained to Mr Phelan that though she thought her ex-partner had an issue with her drinking at the start of their relationship, she later realised his problem was her spending time with her friends.

She said she could count on one hand the number of times she went to her local pub during their relationship because he did not like her friends and thought everyone was a bad influence on her.

“If Mother Theresa came to the door, he would find something wrong with her and tell her to go away,” she said.

The woman agreed with Mr Phelan that his client got a court order against her for alleged harassment but emphasised that he was stalking and harassing her by blaring heavy metal songs with offensive lyrics out his flat window each time she passed to go to the shop.

She said the accused had believed she was “antagonising” him once while she waited for a friend with her baby across the road from his flat.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Paul Carney and a jury of seven women and four men.