Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court previously heard that the complainant initially told the man she was 18. Alamy Stock Photo
Courts

Complainant rejects claims she was never in the home of Irish celebrity charged with defilement

The woman maintained in court that she had attended the defendant’s home on two occasions.

A WOMAN WHO says she engaged in sexual acts with an Irish celebrity when she was 16 has rejected a suggestion by his defence that nothing of a sexual nature happened at his home.

The man (40), who 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 at locations in Dublin on dates between August and December 2010.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court previously heard that the complainant initially told the man she was 18. She gave evidence that she had told him her actual age before they engaged in sexual activity.

It is the State’s case that the man put his penis in the complainant’s mouth on three occasions, once in his workplace and twice in his home. The complainant was 16 at the time, while the man was then 27.

The cross-examination of the woman started yesterday and continued today.

Morgan Shelley BL, defending, told the woman it was his client’s position that the woman never went to his house and nothing of an “intimate or sexual nature” happened.

The woman said she was in the man’s house twice and they engaged in sexual acts.

She accepted that she couldn’t point out the house to gardaí and that she didn’t recall its exact location. 

Shelley put it to her that “you couldn’t possibly have failed to recognise the house” to which she said she “wasn’t paying attention” when she went to the man’s house for the first time.

Referring to her evidence of meeting the man before a Deadmaus concert on 14 December 2010, Shelley asked the woman if she could be thinking of a concert in 2011, which she rejected.

Shelley noted there was a “limited time window” between the girl finishing school and the start of the concert. She agreed, but said she wasn’t sure she was there for the entire concert.

Shelley put it to the witness that she couldn’t have been in the man’s house on 14 December 2010, as his client would have been in work at a different location.

She said, “That’s what I remember.”

When asked if it was possible her memory was wrong, the woman said she recalled it “quite clearly”.

Defence counsel said his client’s version of events was that the woman was only in his workplace once in January 2011 after she turned 17.

She reiterated her evidence that she went to his workplace in August 2010.

Shelley said his client’s recollection was that they went for lunch on the day in January 2011 as she had mentioned her recent birthday to him. During lunch, the man said she must be 19, and it was at this point he says she told him she was 17.

The woman insisted they never went for lunch and this conversation didn’t take place. She insisted she visited his workplace only once and it was “definitely” in August 2010.  

Shelley said his client was “put out that you had lied to him about the fact you said you were 18” and “you said ‘no, I was sweet 16?’”

The woman reiterated that the conversation about her age had taken place by text message during August.

Shelley suggested his client’s recollection of their conversation about her age made “more sense” than hers. The woman said they had discussed her age by text during August.

Shelley put it to the woman that “nothing of a sexual nature” occurred between the woman and his client at his workplace which she rejected.

He said his client would say that he was never in the stairwell of that building, as it would have activated a fire alarm, which would have been a “cardinal sin”.  

“We did go down a stairway,” she replied.

Defence counsel suggested that both would have been “taking an enormous risk of being caught if they had been engaging in sexual activity in a stairway” at his client’s workplace.

The woman replied, “There didn’t seem to be anyone in building when we went there. I guess it was a risk.”

He also put it to the woman that there was “nothing remotely flirtatious, intimate or suggestive of relationship” in the texts between them until February 2012, when she would have been 18.

She replied: “I don’t know what was said in the messages before. We had a sexual relationship.”

She agreed with defence counsel that her phones from that period had been lost, broken or stolen. She also accepted that she remained in contact with his client on and off via social media until 2020.

In other evidence, a friend of the complainant said the woman told her about meeting the man at Oxegen, a music festival in Dublin. She said the woman told her she performed oral sex on the man in a stairwell at his workplace.

The witness said she remembered as it was a “public place that someone could easily walk in on you. It wasn’t somewhere private. It seemed a bit shocking.”

She told Eilis Brennan SC, prosecuting, that these conversations occurred in September or October 2010, but she couldn’t remember specific dates.

She said the complainant told her the man had got them tickets for the Deadmaus concert in December 2010.

She said she and the complainant went to the concert together. She said the complainant left her alone for an “extended period” to go to say thank you to the man.

Shelley asked the witness if it was possible her conversations with the complainant about the man took place at a later date.

She said she was “well aware of the situation” before the Deadmaus concert.

The trial continues before Judge Pauline Codd and the jury.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.