Complainant no stranger to group sex, jury told

Press, 2 September 1977, Page 4

Complainant no stranger to group sex, jury told

The complainant was no - stranger to group sex with) persons she did not know,) one of the defence counsel (Mr R. J. Murfitt) told a jury) in the Supreme Court yester- ( day. He was giving his final address in the trial of four young men on charges arising from an alleged multiple rape. i After a retirement of eight ; hours and a half, the jury j failed to agree on eight of the ; nine charges (see front page). Mr Murfitt said the Crown , had not proved that the girl j had not consented to inter- ; course. Even if she had not, j Crump honestly and reason- ( ably believed that she had. t Members of the jury might. j have been shocked by some)* of the evidence and might;; disapprove of the way of; ; life of the accused and some); of the witnesses for the Crown but the evidence had), to be viewed in context. . Here were young men and;, women who had frequent i; short-term casual sexual; relationships. That did not j mean that the girl had to)accept all comers but her. way of life was relevant to I, the ouestion of consent and) to whether the accused hadj reason to believe that she had consented. The Crown had put much' reliance on the words of the!

■ girl when she told one of) I the accused in the early (stages of the first visit to I “piss off”. It had been said i in a casual manner and was (a phrase of ten used by such i persons, so that it almost became meaningless. It was most significant that the girl, vho had had a row’ with her boyfriend, had denied several times that she had invited Ward to the flat but, when pressed, admitted that she had. The girl had admited that she had done nothing to resist the advances of the accused except to wriggle, but that was a normal part of intercourse. She acknowledged that she could have screamed but had not , done so. Nor had she attempted to push the accused off or to resist them!, in any way. When the girl had gone . to the lavatory, she had had ample opportunity to leave the flat without being seen but had not done so. That , indicated that she had consented to what had taken ■ 'place. , There was evidence that ’ she had co-operated during . the acts of intercourse by wrapping her legs around i Crump. She had also had I oral sex with two of the ' accused when they had asked I her to. 1

i The girl had not complained about the alleged rape I to the other girl in the flat, to her boyfriend, or to the police constable. “You may wonder why these charges were ever laid. The police had been called, almost by accident, to what was described as a ‘domestic assault’. If it had not been for that, there would never have been any allegation of rape.” said Mr Murfitt. The girl had been attempting to have a reconciliation with her boyfriend when she was embarrassed by the unexpected arrival of Ward, whom she had invited previously. She had been worried about her mother’s attitude to the police being called to the flat. By crying “rape”, the girl j had solved all her problems i and allayed her embarrassment at the compromising situation in which she had found herself because of her own actions. The girl’s conduct was not consistent with her being forced to submit to acts of intercourse. Why had no attempt been made to contact the police after the second series of alleged rapes, asked Mr Murfitt. The Crown had said that the girl had been so terrorised that she had been afraid to do anything, but 'that was nonsense. The men

had knocked on the door of the flat and had asked if they could come in. They had not forced their way in. It was clear that the girl was no stranger to group sex with persons she did not know. There was evidence that she had been a willing participant in such activities in bed with two men at the same time. Mr Holdemess said that Ward denied he had had intercourse with the girl on the first visit but admitted that he had done so on the second occasion and said that it had been with her consent.

To convict Ward on the ■ first charge, the jury would ! have to rely solely on the uncorroborated evidence of I the girl and his Honour would, ; issue a warning that it was • dangerous to do so in such) ! circumstances. The girl was I an unreliable and inconsis- ■ tent witness who had changed her testimony bet tween the taking of deposi- ; tions and the trial. f If the jury found that the > girl had not consented, members would have little diffi- ■ culty in reaching the con- , elusions that Ward had honestly but mistakenly believed t that she had. He knew what type of girl i she was because a few days t before, he had been in a flat i when she had had intercourse • with a man called Momo in (bizarre circumstances in a ■ lavatory after she had just met him. Ward had made no attempt to hide the fact that he had been in the flat on both occasions and that he had had sex with the girl on the second visit. If he had been guilty of rape, he would not have made such an admission. , If the girl had been in a ' state of shock after being ■ subjected to multipie rape, she would hardly have returned from the police station and had intercourse with ) her boyfriend. Not many' days after, she , had been drinking on friendly terms with Ward in a hotel, i Mr James said that the ■! girl presented a sorrowful and I pitiful picture in the witness ■ I box and it was apparent that . I she, the accused, and other | witnesses, led an aimless existence in squalid and sordid surroundings. The jury had heard several I irreconcilable accounts of ■ what had happened. The occupants of the flat had had I a glib approach to giving evidence, and one had been declared hostile. It was not rape if the girl’ I had consented at the time but (had later thought better of I lit because she was ashamed of what had happened be-; (cause the police had come. Mr Hall said that Collins,

'was in an entirely different! ' category from the other accused. The members of the { jury had heard some repuljsive and disgusting evidence {but they must not be prejudiced on that account, f Collins was charged with ibeing a party to the alleged {rapes during the second visit ito the flat. If the jury decided {that rape had not occurred, {then Collins had to be acquitted because he could not I be a party to an offence which {had not taken place. { Summing up, Mr Justice ! Somers said that the girl was! {not so much wanton as com-i ipletely amoral. However, any! {woman, no matter what her! {character, was entitled to' {withhold her sexual favours. 1 I “You might wonder what{ {sort of people these are who! {rut like animals but you must! put any prejudice or emotior (such as revulsion, horror, | {sadness, or sympathy aside: {and reach your verdict in a ’ dispassionate manner.” said his Honour.