Jury given definition of consent before going to consider verdicts in sex trial

The jury in the trial of two men accused of sexual assault on the steps of Helston’s churchyard have gone out to deliberate on their verdicts.

Before Truro Crown Court are Calvin Rosevear, from Mullion, and Joe Skewes, from Helston, both now aged 40.

They are now charged with a total of five offences relating to an alleged incident outside St Michael’s Church in Helston during the early hours of July 9 last year.

Rosevear is charged with rape involving penetration of the mouth, and additionally with sexual assault.

Skewes had previously been charged with three counts of sexual assault and one of assault by penetration using fingers.

However, on Monday jury members were told to draw a line through this last charge faced by Skewes, as he had acknowledged he did this act, the question now simply remains over whether it was with consent – something already covered in the third charge of sexual assault.

He now no longer faces a charge of assault by penetration, with the jury told not to return a verdict on this count, by order of Judge Robert Linford.

Both men have pleaded not guilty to all the charges they face.

You can read more from the previous five days of the trial here:

• Woman tells court she was sexually assaulted in Helston churchyard

• Woman denies saying 'I need a sh*g' before alleged sexual assault in Helston

• Woman tells of moment she discovered 'naked lady' on church steps

• 'I'm not a forceful man': Defendants interviewed in Helston sexual assault trial

• Wife and ex partner share support for men charged with sexual assault by church

Judge Linford told the jury today (Monday): “This trial, and any trial, has no place for sympathy. Neither does it have any place for moral judgements.

“This case has nothing to do with the morality of sex in churchyards or taking cocaine. Put aside any moral views you may have, they are irrelevant.

“The burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout. The prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty of the count you are considering.

“It is not for the defendants to prove they are innocent. The prosecution succeeds in proving their case by making you sure of guilt.”

Judge Linford then moved on to the matter of consent, saying: “Consent must not be confused with submission,” before adding that a lack of consent should not be confused with regret.

He continued: “Reasonable basis of consent is to be determined by reference to the facts of the case, including any steps the defendant(s) took to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.”

In regard to the issue of alcohol, the judge said: “Both [the complainant] and the defendants admit to having had a lot of alcohol.

“When considering [the complainant] you must assess whether the amount she drank affected her ability to make a free choice.

“If you find that [the complainant] was so drunk she was incapable of making a free choice as to the issue of consent in that situation, she would not have consented.”

However, he went on to add: “You must bear in mind that a drunken consent is still a consent.”

Moving on to the defendants, Judge Linford said: “In considering the defendants’ belief in consent, you must put out of mind their intoxication.

“If you are sure the defendant(s) did believe that [the complainant] was consenting, but only believing because they were drunk, that belief is an unreasonable one.”

It was then over to the prosecutor and two defence barristers to give their closing statements to the jury.

Jason Beal, prosecuting, said it was up the jurors to answer two questions: “Are you sure that [the complainant] did not consent to the acts in question? If you are sure that she did not consent, are you sure that Calvin Rosevear in counts one and two, and Joe Skewes in counts three to five, did not reasonably believe that she did consent?”

He added that it did not necessarily follow that if the jury found a defendant ‘guilty’ of one count that they were ‘guilty’ of all, and equally if they found a defendant ‘not guilty’ of one that they were ‘not guilty’ of all.

Mr Beal said the complainant was “very drunk” on the night in question, adding this came from a number of sources – from the complainant herself, her friends and two passersby who found the trio on the steps of the church, one of which described the woman as being “out of it.”

“On the [CCTV and mobile phone] footage you can see her stumbling around. Bumping into people. You may think that CCTV which shows her bending over at the waist is her being sick,” said Mr Beal, who added this happened just five minutes before her meeting the defendants.

He also said the complainant “loses her footing at one stage and falls very heavily” in the footage.

Mr Beal said: “[The complainant’s] drunkenness is important, the prosecution say. Whether she consented and whether the defendants reasonably believed she consented.

“In relation to consent, the prosecution say she was not consenting. She was merely going along with what they were doing.”

He said that in such situations there were five potential responses – fight, flight, freeze, flop or fall.

“Submission isn’t the same as consent. People don’t always fight back,” he added.

Mr Beal also referred to a number of messages sent and calls made by the complainant to her friend and a relative, with a missed called at 2.10am and another at 2.27am.

The court was previously told that the complainant left the Beehive pub just after 2am to be sick and returned just before 2.30am with the passersby who had found her.

Of the messages, one of which included the word “hemp,” Mr Beal said: “They’re not messages from someone willingly and enthusiastically agreeing to a threesome with the men. They are messages of someone who realises the situation they’re in and is asking for help.”

Nigel Wraith, defence barrister for Rosevear, quoted the words of a female passerby who came across the complainant and the two defendants on the church steps: “Come on, you’re better than that.”

He said these words might also apply to Rosevear and Skewes, explaining: “We’ve heard from people who think highly of them. This was not their finest hour. But as you have heard, this is not a court of morals, this is a court of law.

“If you were here to judge them on their standard of behaviour I imagine you would find them very poorly indeed.

“But that’s not what we are here to judge. What we are here to judge is if you are sure the two men have committed the criminal offences alleged against them.”

Mr Wraith said there was no evidence to suggest that either man knew anything about the state of the complainant before they met on the steps [beside the museum].

He referred to one of the complainant’s friends telling the court that after she was sick “she was much better after she got the alcohol out of her system.”

Mr Wraith said CCTV footage supported that, adding: “We don’t see her stumbling around and maybe she had made a bit of an effort to gather herself before she goes to speak to the defendant.

“She may not be co-ordinated throughout but she is able to stand in front of them on those cobbles for three minutes before she sits between them.”

With regards to the men touching, or putting their face in, her breasts while sat on the steps by the museum, Mr Wraith said: “The prosecution are saying she was so drunk she didn’t realise what was happening was sexual, but her comment to the police was, ‘He was clearly wanting to get something out of me as we sat on those steps’.”

He also pointed to the steps of the churchyard being in an area surrounded by houses, saying that if the two men had not believed it to be consensual: “Are you not going to find a quiet corner somewhere away from the path used as a cut-through?

“Down here is a road people walk past. They haven’t gone up further, haven’t gone on to a dark corner of the graveyard.”

Rupert Taylor, defending Skewes, said it was Skewes himself who first told police about the two passersby. “He doesn’t have to say that, but he did,” said Mr Taylor.

He said the complainant’s friends told the court: “She’s hysterical; crying her eyes out. She’s having some sort of panic attack and she can’t talk. She’s so drunk she can barely stand up. Her make-up was smeared down her face.

“But we have seen the footage. She has her handbag over her shoulder, her hair up still neatly put back. Her make-up isn’t running and she’s carrying what appears to be her jumper or cardigan over her arm. The same arm that’s in a sling four days later when she’s giving her account to police because according to her friend she told him her hand was broken or fractured.”

Mr Taylor also commented that the complainant remained in town for an hour after the returning to the Beehive from the alleged incident, before getting in a taxi to return home.

The jury has now gone out to consider verdicts for each charge.

The trial continues.