Celebrity Sex Trial Heats Up as Woman Denies Defence Claims
A gripping trial unfolding in Dublin has seen a woman insist she did visit a celebrity’s home — despite defence barristers saying otherwise.
Woman Refutes Defence Claims Over Defendant’s House
During a fiery second day in court, the woman, who claims to have had sexual encounters with the celebrity when she was just 16, hit back hard at suggestions she never set foot in his house. The barrister argued she couldn’t even identify the property to police. But she stood her ground, insisting she visited the defendant’s home twice in 2010.
The defendant, a man in his 40s who cannot be named for legal reasons, faces three charges of engaging in sexual acts with a child under 17 between August and December 2010. He has pleaded not guilty.
Festival Meeting Sparks Controversy
- The woman said she first met the defendant at a music festival when she was 16.
- Though she initially lied about her age, she later admitted being underage.
- She claims the defendant took her to his workplace and his home where oral sex occurred.
- Their sexual encounters supposedly continued after she turned 17.
Defence Challenges Credibility Amidst Conflicting Details
The defence pushed back, pointing out inconsistencies—such as the defendant being filmed during one alleged meeting, which contradicts her timeline. They also dug into a police statement about the defendant getting braces, arguing this happened after she turned 17, not when she alleged the abuse started.
Still, the woman stuck to her story, admitting she was “quite drunk” during one house visit and couldn’t pinpoint the property now because she didn’t pay much attention back then.
Friends Back Victim’s Account in Court
Two friends testified in support of the complainant, confirming she’d told them about meeting the defendant at the Oxegen festival and sexual activity in a workplace stairwell.
The trial, centred on charges under the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 2006, highlights the prosecution’s focus on protecting minors. They stress the complainant was only 16, challenging any defence claims based on consent.
