Jury retires to consider verdict in rape trial

Thursday 06 July 2017

The 12 members of the jury have retired to consider their verdict in the trial of a 21-year-old man who is accused of having raped and indecently assaulted a 17-year-old girl in October 2016.

Paulo Adelino Pestana Ferreira is facing four counts of indecent assault and one of rape. He is pleading not guilty to all charges.

Earlier today, Crown Advocate Simon Thomas summed up the prosecution case, which he said was not "...about passing a moral judgment about the victim."

He explained that even though she was 17 at the time, the girl went to town and drank alcohol, so much that a policeman was alerted by the state she was in and came to speak to her. "It is clear that she wasn’t sober at that stage, quite the reverse. The defendant says she didn't appear 'too drunk' to him. Did he want to downplay the level of intoxication? Why did he want to do that?"

The Crown Advocate continued saying that "In the hour they spent walking around town, there is no indication of kissing or touching, which you would expect from a young couple who had been intimate in a nightclub. Intimacy was not on the victim's mind, she was confused and was trying to find her lift home. She was drunk and he perceived the opportunity to have further sexual activity with her."

He then asked the jury to consider why the defendant had failed to mention that he and the victim had been kissing. "If you accept he lied, you have to ask why? The prosecution says he knew what he had done to her. He knew he had sexual intercourse with her."

Referring to the issue of whether the victim's top came off during the course of the evening, the Crown Advocate said: "The defendant conceded that the top was up and her breasts were exposed. This is a significant change in his account, and a change that came only when he was backed onto a corner with scientific evidence. Somebody in this case is not telling the truth and you must consider who."

Leading the defence, Advocate Rui Tremoceiro, addressed the jury as well. He opened saying: "Without the evidence from the complainant there simply is no case. Her evidence is by far the most important part of the prosecution case. Unless you are satisfied that her evidence is credible and reliable, it is hard for you to imagine the defendant to be guilty. I invite you to assess the quality of her evidence." He then added that the victim was "...clearly drunk enough to have forgotten important parts or to have gotten wrong some important details."

He continued saying that the complainant's account that Mr Ferreira had touched her during the car journey or forced her to touch him wasn't feasible when he was wearing "...tight fitting boxers and trousers, while driving with a seatbelt on." 

 He stated: "This girl clearly convinced herself that she must have been forced. Even when logic told her otherwise, she could not bring herself to believe she would have done this with an older man as she believed. There is such a thing as a false memory which is incorrect, but a person strongly believes."

He then challenged the rape allegations saying: "There is no objective evidence they had sex at all. There is no scientific evidence at all that supports the allegations that are the basis of the counts."

He also challenged the prosecution's view of his client as "...a sexual predator looking for a vulnerable victim." "He was dancing and he met a girl whom he assumed to be over 18 as she was in a nightclub. He found her attractive and she seemed to be interested in him. What more natural that they started dancing and cuddled? What more natural to assume that if she was happy to kiss him this could lead to more? He could have taken advantage of her at any point. When the complainant went to the toilet in Sand Street car park, he waited outside. Is that a sexual predator?"

He then explained his client did not initially understand why he was arrested and had panicked, thinking he could get into trouble "...for having intimate contact with a minor, although he had thought she was over 18." "He works full time, lives with parents, and has no previous convictions of relevance. Does the characterisation of the prosecution seem fair? Even in this court he exposed childlike embarrassment when speaking of sexual matters."

The jury have now retired and are expected to return a verdict later.