The latest from Belfast Crown Court.
A barrister for Ireland and Ulster rugby player Stuart Olding told a jury today (Wednesday) that his client was “undoubtedly” telling the truth – “warts and all”.
Now in its eighth week, the trial at Belfast Crown Court involving Olding, teammate Paddy Jackson and two other men is now in the stages of closing submissions.
Addressing the jury on behalf of his 25-year-old client, barrister Frank O’Donoghoe criticised both the police and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), and also suggested the evidence given by the woman at the centre of the claim was “totally unreliable”.
Olding, from Ardenlee Street in Belfast, has been charged with and has denied forcing the complainant to perform oral sex on him in Jackson’s Oakleigh Park bedroom after a night out in the VIP section of Ollie’s.
Olding – who along with Jackson had just returned from a tour in South Africa with the Ireland rugby squad – claimed any sexual activity in the early hours of Tuesday June 28, 2016 was consensual.
It is the Crown’s case that at some point whilst being raped from behind by Jackson, Olding entered the room and the woman was forced to perform oral sex on him. However, Olding claimed it was she who beckoned him into the room and that after he ejaculated, he left the room and slept in a separate room.
Pointing out that the crux of the case against Olding was consent, Mr O’Donoghoe told the jury there was absolutely no forensic evidence to support the woman’s claim of forced oral rape.
Urging the jury to consider “very, very carefully indeed” the complainant’s credibility, Mr O’Donoghoe said: “Don’t judge the book by the cover. Don’t assume that because an account appears plausible, it must therefore be true.”
The barrister reminded the jury that when she was asked whilst giving evidence how Olding’s penis came to be in her mouth, she replied: “I’m not entirely sure to be honest.” Pointing out that the now 21-year old “has no real memory of the central allegation of being forced to perform oral sex at the time”, Mr O’Donoghoe told the jury there was a difference between “memory and an assumption”.
Accusing the woman’s account as being “utterly unreliable”, Mr O’Donoghoe spoke of the different version of events she gave to a doctor, then to police – including the number of ‘Ulster rugby players’ she had been vaginally raped by.
Mr O’Donoghoe said: “If the police and Public Prosecution Service hadn’t judged the book by the cover but had really studied the evidence in this case, including what Stuart Olding and other witnesses were saying, it would have been readily apparent to them that the complainant’s evidence is completely unreliable.”
Olding’s barrister told the jury that on 30 June, when the woman gave her interview, there were over a dozen questions – “no matter how uncomfortable” – that police should have asked her. These questions, according to Mr O’Donoghoe, should have included ‘at what point did Stuart apply pressure to her head?’ and ‘why did she open her mouth?’
Other questions police should have asked, said Mr O’Donoghoe, was ‘why didn’t she scream?’ Telling the jury there were “middle-class girls downstairs, they were not going to tolerate a rape or anything else”, the barrister asked: “Why did she not scream the house down?”
Olding’s barrister branded the woman’s evidence as “completely devoid of relevant and essential details … it is of hopeless quality”, adding the investigation into the allegations made against Olding was “at best poor and at worst virtually non-existent”.
Turning to his client, Mr O’Donoghoe said that instead of approaching him first, investigating officers went to “Ravenhill, the home of his employers” to inform him to go to Musgrave Park.
Saying the whole process was a “rude awakening” for a young man who had never been in trouble with police, Mr O’Donoghoe revealed Olding was subjected to intrusive forensic examinations – none of which provided a forensic link to back up claims made by the woman.
Rejecting suggestions Olding was part of a cover-up conspiracy in the aftermath of the incident, the barrister also pointed out that much of the account given to police by Olding was actually backed up by the complainant when she gave evidence in court – including several interruptions during the act, such as her taking her top off.
Telling the jury “it’s hardly to his benefit to inform police he had 20 alcoholic drinks” prior to events in the bedroom, Mr O’Donoghoe said that during interview, Olding “didn’t contradict himself” but rather told the truth “warts and all”.
Addressing the text and WhatsApp messages exchanged with friends in the hours after the incident, Mr O’Donoghoe accepted his client “started to act the big lad to brag to his friends on social media, using language I’m sure he’s not proud of.”
Saying these messages were private and on his own phone, Mr O’Donoghoe accepted that whilst the contents were “unattractive”, there was nothing to suggest he had involved himself in non-consensual activity.
He told the jury of eight men and three women: “Stuart Olding is innocent of this charge and I implore you to do your duty in this case and acquit.”
Reporting by Ashleigh McDonald for M&M News Services.
LISTEN: You Must Be Jokin’ with Aideen McQueen – Faith healers, Coolock craic and Gigging as Gaeilge
