A person has no right to sexually assault somebody just because they are naive and foolish, a lawyer has told the trial of a man accused of attacking a woman he met through online dating.
The Dublin man (36), who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to sexually assaulting a woman on the University College Dublin campus on July 23rd, 2014.
The woman, a foreign national aged 35, told the trial that she arranged to meet the man after weeks of communicating with him on Tinder and WhatsApp.
He picked her up in his car and drove her to a field on the UCD campus. The woman said he then “changed completely”, became aggressive and sexually assaulted her.
The man told gardaí he thought they were meeting to “hook up” and hoped they would have sex. He denied getting angry and attacking her when this did not happen.
On day seven of the trial the jury heard details of two Garda interviews with the defendant. Jurors also heard closing speeches before Judge Cormac Quinn sent them home for the night ahead of beginning their deliberations on Thursday.
The accused told gardaí that after driving the woman to a secluded laneway he tried to kiss her. He hoped he would seduce her and that they would have sex.
Hysterical
He said the woman pushed him back and became hysterical. He said he moved away and told her to relax. He said she continued to “freak out” and he asked her to get out of the car, which made her more upset. He then drove to a field on the campus where the woman got out before he drove away.
In his closing speech Paul Burns SC, prosecuting, told the jury that the man's Garda interviews were self-serving.
He asked why the man had driven her to a “secluded field” and not the campus exit if she was “freaking out”. The defendant’s version of events did not add up, he said. “He drives off leaving this girl in the middle of a field. A girl who is upset. Why would he do that?” he said.
Paul Flannery SC, defending, said that while his client was not being particularly gentlemanly on the night, what he did was reasonable enough given the woman's hysterical reaction. He said the defendant made no bones about what he was doing on Tinder and was upfront at all times.
“If you’re like me, you don’t approve of men taking women out on Tinder for dates or sex. Neither sympathy for her or distaste for him is relevant,” he said.
Credibility
Counsel told the jury that there were serious doubts about the credibility of the complainant’s evidence.
He asked the jurors if they could “seriously believe” her when she said she did not understand words like “fuck” and “kiss”, used by the accused during their online conversations.
He said the complainant was aware that the man was looking to meet up for sex. This did not mean she was entitled to be sexually assaulted but his client’s case was that her version of events never happened.
Mr Burns told the jurors they might consider the complainant naive, foolish and even stupid, but that none of these gave anyone the right to attack her.
He said that simply agreeing to meet someone did not make them fair game.
“Everyone has the right to say no to sexual advances. No one is entitled to force themselves on another,” he said.
Mr Burns said the complainant was a credible witness who had travelled halfway across the world.