Man being sued for damages denies raping St Andrews student

A man has again denied raping a St Andrews University student who was too drunk to resist, in a rare civil action that follows his acquittal at a criminal trial.

Stephen Coxen, 23, from Bury, Lancashire, is being sued by the woman, known as M, for nearly £100,000 in damages for raping her and injuring her tongue.

He was acquitted of rape at a high court trial in December 2015, after the jury found the case against him not proven, a Scottish criminal verdict that stops short of finding the accused not guilty but leaves him innocent in law.

Coxen told Edinburgh sheriff court the woman began kissing him without warning at a nightclub during freshers’ week at St Andrews in 2013.

Thursday’s hearing was suspended abruptly after M left the court in distress during Coxen’s account of the evening, while four unidentified members of the public were sitting in court. Proceedings resumed nearly 20 minutes later and the court was closed to the public.

Shortly before M left, Coxen had told his advocate, Stephen O’Rourke QC, he believed she had begun bleeding while they were having sex because it was her period.

“I got quite distressed and I left her property quite quickly,” Coxen said, adding that his reaction was “immature, stupid” and was because he felt “grossed out” by it.

Asked by O’Rourke what he now thought of his reaction, Coxen said: “I would apologise for that. [It was] very rude.”

M said the blood was the result of rape, and that Coxen injured her tongue by forcing her to give oral sex while holding her head.

Janusz Knepil, a toxicology expert, told the court that the amount of alcohol M had consumed left her with “a very, very high possibility of unconsciousness”.

Coxen told the court that M had approached him in the Lizard Lounge nightclub, and the pair had been very affectionate towards each other. “We were passionately kissing,” he said. “She seemed like she was enjoying herself.”

Under cross-examination by M’s counsel, Simon Di Rollo QC, Coxen said he had no recollection of how much he had drunk that evening. Challenged on his evidence given at trial that he was not very drunk, Coxen said that may have been the case.

Di Rollo pressed Coxen on three key parts of his defence case, which Di Rollo said were disputed by the evidence and other witnesses.

Coxen’s claim to have taken M’s mobile phone because she had no pockets in her jeans was a lie, Di Rollo said. Her jeans did have pockets and she also had a handbag with her.

Coxen said he was unable to remember what he had told an old schoolfriend, Dominic Hurst, who was studying maths at St Andrews and whom he was visiting, about the events that night.

Coxen agreed on Thursday that he admitted to Hurst the night had ended badly only after Hurst had been questioned by police in Scotland in early 2014, which led to the two men exchanging text messages.

Coxen was also wrong to claim the gate to M’s flat was opened by another woman, Di Rollo said. Both her flatmates testified on oath that they did not, and there was no trace on M’s mobile phone of any calls he says she made to get her flatmates to open the gate.

Di Rollo told the court Coxen had exercised his right to silence when he was questioned by police in 2014 about what he did at the gate. M alleges she was so drunk she dropped her phone, and that he took it.

Di Rollo asked him whether that was a sign she was too drunk to consent to sex. Coxen replied: “I’m not sure whether one is equal to the other.”

Coxen also confirmed he had been thrown out of the nightclub by three bouncers after an altercation with several other guests, who had accused Coxen and M of bumping into them.

Di Rollo asked Coxen whether he believed M was lying to everyone about being forced to give oral sex, including to her family, her friends, her doctors, the police and the courts.

“Yes,” Coxen replied.

The case is due to end on Friday, with the judge, Sheriff Robert Weir QC, expected to give his decision at a later date.