Verdicts in trial of two men accused of sexual assault at Helston chuchyard

A jury has returned verdicts in the trial of two men charged with alleged sexual assault on the steps of St Michael’s churchyard in Helston.

They found both men not guilty on all charges, after just over five hours of deliberating.

Calvin Rosevear, from Mullion, and Joe Skewes, from Helston, both now aged 40, had been on trial at Truro Crown Court facing a total five offences.

These were alleged to have taken place during the early hours of July 9 last year. Both men had pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

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

The jury found him not guilty on both charges.

Skewes had originally 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 during evidence he had acknowledged he did this act. As a result the question simply remained over whether it was done with consent – an issue already covered in the third charge of sexual assault.

Today (Tuesday) the jury found him not guilty of all three charges of sexual assault.

The previous sixth charge of assault by penetration was removed, with the jury told not to return a verdict on this count, by order of Judge Robert Linford.

You can read what happened on the previous six 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

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

Over the course of the seven-day trial the court had heard how the complainant had been out for the evening in Helston with work friends.

After drinking at two other pubs, she moved on to the Beehive where she continued to drink.

At around 2am she went outside with a friend, crossing the road to the area next to the museum, where she was sick.

It was while they were there that Rosevear and Skewes came to sit on the steps above the cannon.

They gave evidence to say they had walked from Skewes’s house into town, stopping to take a line of cocaine in Wendron Street, before heading to the Beehive – although they had not knowingly crossed paths with the complainant during that time.

They then decided to walk to the museum area, with the intention of taking another line of cocaine and for Rosevear to urinate, but as people were already there they instead sat on the steps to wait for them to leave.

Shortly afterwards the complainant’s friend returned to the Beehive and she came to talk to them on the steps.

Rosevear had described her to the jury as “a good laugh”, adding: “She was being very flirty and we said ‘Do you fancy a bit of fun with us?’ She was like ‘Absolutely’.”

He recalled that he put his face in her breasts, saying: “There was no pushing me away. It was consensual."

And Skewes had described the moment they had first met the complainant by saying: “Calvin is just straight up to her saying ‘Would you like a threesome?’ I couldn’t believe it when she just said yes.”

CCTV shows that shortly afterwards the complainant and the two men get up to walk down Church Street – the defendants saying this was to find somewhere to have a threesome.

The complainant had tried to suggest the men had dropped names of her friends into conversation and claimed they’d said her friend had gone to a house party, and they would take her there.

However, the jury believed both defendants when they said there was no mention of any house party or her friends’ names.

Rosevear had previously said in evidence: “She didn’t have to come with us. She was absolutely fine, no stumbling all the over place.”

He had explained to the court they walked to the steps of St Michael’s Church, where he lay down and they started kissing and “fumbling around.”

It was not long afterwards that a couple walked past the trio.

The court had heard from Rosevear: “She [the woman] started saying to [the complainant] ‘Are you OK?’. I think she said ‘I’m fine’. She seemed very embarrassed by all this.”

He said the couple walked on but returned shortly afterwards and “basically dragged [the complainant] down the steps and away she went.”

He said the complainant was not crying at all. “There were no ‘noes’. If there were any noes I would have stopped completely. I’m a gentleman. I’m not a forceful man,” he said.

“I was totally shocked by the way it happened. It was all ‘Yes, yes, yes’. It was going to be a bit of fun. I didn’t think or expect it would lead to me being here. It’s just very bizarre, you know?”

The female passerby had told the court that she had gone up to the complainant and told her: "Come on babe, you’re better than that."

She added: "Then as we were walking down the hill she was saying, ‘They didn’t do anything, they didn’t do anything.’"

The court had also heard from a woman the complainant had been drinking with that night, who told police she had heard the complainant say: “I need to go home with someone tonight. I need a shag.”

When questioned in court, the woman recalled that the complainant had “said that she can’t go home without a shag tonight and that she had shagged 50-year-old blokes before. In the middle of the dancefloor, loud, so people could hear.”

The complainant had denied saying this when questioned about it in court.

When asking the jury to consider their verdicts, Judge Linford had stated the law’s position on consent and its relationship with alcohol.

He had told them: “Consent must not be confused with submission,” before adding that a lack of consent should not be confused with regret.

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.”