PROSECUTING COUNSEL IN the trial of an Irish celebrity accused of the defilement of a 16-year-old girl over a decade ago has told a jury his version of events is “unbelievable” and “riddled with inconsistencies”. 

The man (40) 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. 

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. He has denied any wrongdoing. 

In her closing address today, Eilis Brennan SC, prosecuting, told jurors that they had heard “two radically different accounts of events” in late 2010 during the trial. 

She suggested that the “only plausible version of events” was the one given by the complainant, while the man’s version was “unbelievable, riddled with inconsistencies and matters you could not believe”. 

She asked the jury to consider the credibility of both the complainant and the man. The “bottom line is that one is not telling the truth”. 

She said the complainant’s version was “coherent” but the man’s version “makes no sense”. 

Brennan pointed out that the woman knew “key details” of the man’s life. She put it to the jury that it would be unusual for a 16-year-old to know these things about the man’s life “when on his account he only met her once in 2010 and once in 2011”. 

She suggested that the man had “crafted a narrative” when faced with the woman’s “compelling account” of events. 

She said the man “made a few mistakes” in the narrative, including a “key blunder” in relation to his account that they had lunch at a restaurant in January 2011. The man gave evidence that this was when the woman told him her actual age. 

She said the woman gave evidence that this meeting never happened and she never went for lunch with the man. She noted that the man says he then took the complainant to his office and showed her pictures of his home, although he had discovered she lied to him about her age. 

She said the woman was “forthright” and didn’t seek to do the man down. She noted the defendant acknowledged the woman didn’t have a grudge against him. 

Referring to the woman’s evidence, Brennan suggested the first meeting between the man and the complainant in August was the beginning of a “secret, furtive relationship”. 

In relation to the second alleged incident, she said the woman “was going to meet a fella” and it was “a bit far-fetched” to suggest that a girl who was “taking directions” should be able to point out the house many years later. 

Brennan told the jury that there is nothing in the evidence of the man’s movements on 14 December 2010, the day of the Deadmaus concert, that precludes him from having met with the woman at his home. 

She noted that she asked the man to categorise his relationship with the woman in 2010 and he provided “no real explanation for how everything developed”.

“When people exchange numbers, it’s usually because they are attracted to each other or planning to go on a date.”

She reminded the jury that the man is not on trial for anything that happened after the woman turned 17. Brennan said the only explanation of their interactions after the woman’s 17th birthday was that an intimate relationship had already formed between the man and the complainant. 

She said the man decided to “deny everything” and “sought to craft an explanation for how she knows all these thing about his house and where he works”.

She said his account “does not hold water”.

Brennan told the jury that consent is not a defence under the legislation, but there is a potential defence if the defendant honestly believed the woman was 17.

“In this case, the defence is that these acts didn’t take place. But I understand there is a secondary line of defence even if you don’t believe the man on that, and if you believe acts took place, you should accept his evidence that he didn’t know she was 17 until January 2011.”

She suggested this was a “pretty inconsistent position to adopt” and the defence was “trying to have it both ways”.

She suggested to the jury if it believes the man is lying when he says “these acts never took place”, before they consider honest belief, “you will already have decided he told you untruths about events in 2010”.

In his closing speech, Morgan Shelley BL said the defence has backed their case with “objective, independent evidence” that is “not capable of lying or being wrong”. 

He said it is an “extraordinary proposition” that the man’s presentation in the witness box would be “less credible because he prefers to touch back to independent evidence that shows he is telling the truth”. 

He told the jury it must consider the evidence through the lens of his client’s presumption of innocence and that it must be convinced by the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence closing speech continues tomorrow before Judge Pauline Codd and the jury.

Comments are closed as legal proceedings are ongoing.