In an ongoing trial that has captivated public attention, a woman who claims to have engaged in sexual acts with a celebrity when she was 16 vehemently denied suggestions from a defence barrister that she had never been in the accused man’s house.
During the second day of her cross-examination, the defence barrister put forth the argument that the woman had never been to the defendant’s home and was unable to identify it to the police. The accused, who is now in his 40s and cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 17 in Dublin between August and December 2010.
The woman, who met the defendant at a music festival when she was 16, admitted initially lying about her age, but later confessed that she was indeed 16. She testified that while she was still underage, the defendant had taken her to his workplace and to his home on two occasions, where oral sex had taken place. She also claimed that their casual sexual relationship continued after she turned 17.
In response to the defence’s assertion that nothing had ever happened in the workplace stairwell, the woman maintained that they had gone to the bottom of a fire escape type stairwell during a weekend when there were few people in the building. She acknowledged the risk involved but insisted that the sexual encounter did occur. Similarly, she stood firm in her belief that she had been in the accused man’s house twice in 2010 as a 16-year-old, although she admitted she could not point out the house to the police years later due to not paying attention during her visits. She also mentioned being “quite drunk” during one visit.
The defence challenged the woman’s credibility by pointing out alleged inconsistencies, such as the defendant’s involvement in a recorded show during one of the alleged meetings, which contradicted her claim. However, the woman remained steadfast, maintaining that she had indeed been to the defendant’s house.
Regarding a statement she made to the police about the defendant getting braces, the defence argued that this statement was made in the context of her claim of being 16 at the time. They contended that the defendant did not get braces until the following year when she was 17. The woman, unable to provide an exact timeframe, explained that she was trying to provide thorough information to the authorities and did not have precise details on when the defendant got braces.
Throughout the intense cross-examination, the woman insisted that she had been in the defendant’s house, countering assertions that no sexual activity had taken place there. Two friends of the complainant also testified in support of her claims, recalling her accounts of meeting the defendant at the Oxegen festival in 2010 and mentioning sexual activity in a workplace stairwell.
The trial, which centres on charges under the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 2006, continues to unravel a complex narrative. The prosecution emphasises the complainant’s age of 16 at the time, challenging any defence based on consent and underscoring the importance of protecting children in such cases.
