Jury retires in alleged rape trial

Thursday 31 August 2017

The jury has retired to consider its verdict in the Royal Court trial against a 32-year-old man who is accused of having raped and indecently assaulted a 25-year-old woman, who spent the night at his flat after a party in December 2015.

Wayne Mark Highfield is pleading not guilty to all the charges against him, three counts of indecent assault and one count of rape.

This morning, both the Prosecution and the Defence made their closing speeches to the jury. Crown Advocate Simon Thomas told the 12 jurors that although this case was one of one person’s word against the other's, it did not mean they were not in a position to convict the defendant.

He said that there were two competing accounts: the defendant's who says that the sexual activity was consensual, that the woman participated enthusiastically and that it all ended when she said she had a husband and a child; and the alleged victim's who says she was indecently assaulted and raped. 

Advocate Thomas then challenged the defendant's claim that the woman was being flirtatious. He said: "Does the idea of her being interested in the defendant fit in with the evidence of the other people at the party? Even if you think she was being flirtatious that can not be taken as an indication that someone is interested in sexual activity. There is no evidence that she was positively interested in the defendant. If she had been interested, given the amount of alcohol, on her own admission, she consumed, she would have been disinhibited and displayed some kind of attraction. She didn’t in all five hours she was there."

He then said that the idea the alleged victim made false accusations didn't add up, especially the fact that she would have gone from consenting to something to then complaining in a short period.

The Crown Advocate then addressed the comments the defendant made during his first interview with the police. Mr Highfield refused to comment on what had happened in his bed the night of the alleged incident, explaining he would rather wait for the DNA results before doing so. The Crown Advocate said in doing so Mr Highfield wanted to come up with an account that would fit in with the forensic results. By comparison, he said, the alleged victim gave her account on 28 December 2015 on the same day she was allegedly raped. He then said that the DNA found on the woman was undoubtedly Mr Highfield's. 

He added that there was no evidence the woman tried to conceal her marital status or the fact she had a child and that she stayed at the flat because she thought it was a safe environment. He described her as a "young mother on her first night out in a while, looking for a brief respite from the rigours of parenthood" who only had in mind to get some rest before going home and face the day with her child. He then concluded his speech saying that the jury could be sure Mr Highfield committed all the offences he was accused of.

The Defence advocate, Michael Haines, said Mr Highfield did not commit any of the terrible crimes that were set out in court, as it would be completely out of character for him.

He then said that the woman intended to sleep with Mr Highfield in his bed and that is why she made a free choice to stay over, knowing he fancied her, rather than walk the short distance home where her husband and young child were waiting for her. He added that the jury could be in no doubt that the bed in the flat was Mr Highfield's.

He continued saying that if Mr Highfield wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, he would have followed her immediately, rather than waiting a couple of hours before joining her  in bed.  He also refuted the idea that, being exhausted, Mr Highfield would have remained awake for a considerable amount of time, during which he repeatedly assaulted the woman according to her account.

Advocate Haines then addressed the forensic evidence saying no injury was found on the woman's body, nor finger bruises on her wrists where she claims she was grabbed and held. He added that no semen was found and the DNA results were not entirely conclusive as it wasn't possible to give the probability of the woman contributing to the DNA profile found on Mr Highfield. He however stated that the findings were entirely consistent with the defence’s case and positively supported it, as they did not conclude that sexual intercourse took place.

The defence advocate then said the woman's account was incredible and unbelievable on so many levels. He said that the five separate incidents she described were all lies. He reminded the jury that Mr Highfield's friends described him as "friendly, not a macho person, polite, respectful to women, not rude not aggressive at all," characteristics that did not change when he wasn't sober.

He then said: "People do and say strange things all the time maybe on impulse, out of panic, maybe fighting through the consequences of their actions," before concluding the jury could not be sure of guilt on each and every count.

The jury has now retired to consider their verdict after the Bailiff, Sir William Bailhache, summed up the evidence and gave his directions.