Jury urged to “consider the dangers of memories” in sex abuse trial

Thursday 01 March 2018

The jury of seven women and five men have been urged to “consider the dangers of memories” and warned that “details can be embellished” by the defence lawyer in a sex abuse trial.

49-year-old Antony John Quant is on trial at the Royal Court for 20 counts of sexual abuse, including eight counts of indecent assault, eight counts of rape and four counts of sodomy in the 1970’s and 1980’s. He is accused of carrying out the abuse on two girls and a boy. He denies all the charges.

Mr Quant was originally facing 23 counts of abuse when the trial started last week, but they were reduced to 20 on Tuesday as the Crown said “they listened to the evidence and adjusted them” but urged the jury that this does not clear Mr Quant as “he still faces charges of sexual abuse” during their closing statement yesterday.

The jury spent four days listening to evidence from the two women and a man who claim they were sexually abused by Mr Quant when they were children, describing him as using sweets, chocolate and money to groom them and keep their silence, and having a “silly grin” on his face when he allegedly abused them “like he was enjoying it.”

The three complainants all said they didn’t tell anyone at the time as they didn’t think they would be believed; they didn’t know Mr Quant had allegedly sexually assaulted anyone else. The man told the jury “I thought it was in everybody’s best interest to keep quiet.”

Addressing the jury, Crown Advocate Emma Hollywood asked: “Why would they make it all up? Why would they put themselves through this very public ordeal? Why would they describe very intimate details to complete strangers… because they are telling the truth.”

She reminded the jury that the age of criminal responsibility is from 10-years-old, when Mr Quant is alleged to have started the sexual abuse.

Advocate Hollywood said the complainants: “were still at an age of innocence, when children still believe in magic and the magic of fairies, no wonder they didn’t know what was going on and that they were encouraged by sweets. What hope did they have when trying to understand what was going on?

“All they knew is that it hurt, it was wrong and it was uncomfortable. All believing that they were the only one going through the abuse. Maybe they could of each spoken up to prevent the other one being abused but they were children and the defendant was manipulative,” she added.

The two women made formal sexual abuse complaints against Mr Quant to the police in 1992, but the case was closed in 1993.

The court heard that the man first spoke of the alleged abuse by Mr Quant to a girlfriend in 2000, and then admitted to it again in 2014 when he was emailed by one of the other claimants. It took another two years before the man made a formal complaint to police in 2016, when the case was reopened and he and the other two women were asked to come forward.

Pictured: Antony Quant is on trial at the Royal Court for 20 counts of sexual abuse from the 1970's and 1980's. 

The issue of compensation was raised a number of times during the trial by Mr Quant’s defence, with Advocate Sue Pearmain claiming it was the motivation behind one of the woman’s accusations of sexual abuse as she had sent friends texts and emails discussing her plans of buying personal training sessions, a holiday of a lifetime and a smart car with the compensation award from the court case.

Crown Advocate Emma Hollywood told the jury that Advocate Pearmain had accused the woman of being a “drama queen to a money grabber” but reminded them that each of the claimants had become visibly upset while giving evidence, saying their emotions were “genuine and it is quite understandable.”

Summing up her case, Advocate Pearmain disagreed with this, telling the jury: “It is our case that Tony never committed any of the offences. There is doubt and you have to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt.”

The defence lawyer explained to the jury that there wasn’t any evidence of anybody hearing or seeing any of the alleged sexual assaults on any of the people claiming they were abused, claiming that there are inconsistencies in the witness accounts and that: “evidence needs to be approached carefully.”   

She said the allegations were fuelled by jealousy and the need for attention, as well as compensation.

Advocate Pearmain told the jury that within each witness account: “There are similarities which the Crown says corroborates – we say they have each been contaminated. There are many discrepancies… the crown itself is not sure of their evidence so have had to amend the counts.” She added: “A lot of the evidence was caveated with ‘I don’t remember’ or ‘it was a long time ago.”

Advocate Pearmain closed her case telling the jury: “You cannot be sure that these events did happen.”

The Deputy Bailiff, Tim Le Cocq, who is presiding is due to summarise the facts and give his directions this morning before the jury retires to consider its verdict.