Jury Given Definition of Consent Before Reaching Verdict in Sex Trial

The jury in the trial of two men accused of sexual assault on the steps of Helston Cemetery has emerged to deliberate on their verdicts.

Appearing before Truro Crown Court are Calvin Rosevear, of Mullion, and Joe Skewes, of Helston, both now 40.

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

Rosevear is charged with rape with oral penetration and also sexual assault.

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

However, on Monday, the jury was asked to draw a line under this latest charge against Skewes, as he had admitted to committing the act. The question simply remains whether it was with consent – which is already covered in the third sexuality charge. assault.

He is now no longer charged with assault by penetration, the jury having been told not to return a verdict on that charge, by order of Judge Robert Linford.

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

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

Mr Justice Linford told the jury today (Monday): “This trial, and any trial, has no room for sympathy. There is no room for moral judgments either.

“This case has nothing to do with the morality of sex in cemeteries or cocaine use. Put aside your moral opinions, they are irrelevant.

“The burden of proof always rests on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty of the charge you are considering.

“It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence. The prosecution succeeds in proving its case by proving your guilt to you.”

Justice Linford then turned to the issue of consent, stating: “Consent should not be confused with submission,” before adding that lack of consent should not be confused with regret.

He continued: “The reasonable basis for consent must be determined by reference to the facts of the case, including the steps taken by the defendant(s) to ascertain whether the complainant consented. »

Regarding the issue of alcohol, the judge said: “Both (the complainant) and the accused admit to drinking a lot of alcohol.

“When you examine (the complainant), you have to assess whether the amount she drank affected her ability to make a free choice.

“If you conclude that (the complainant) was so intoxicated that she was unable to make a free choice about the issue of consent in this situation, she would not have consented.”

He added, however: “You have to keep in mind that consent while intoxicated is still consent.”

Turning to the defendants, Judge Linford said: “In considering the defendants’ belief in consent, you have to put out of mind their drunkenness.

“If you are sure that the defendant(s) believed that (the plaintiff) was consenting, but only because they were drunk, that belief is unreasonable.”

It was then up to the prosecutor and two defense attorneys to make their final submissions to the jury.

Jason Beal, prosecutor, said jurors were asked two questions: “Are you sure that (the complainant) did not consent to the acts in question? If you are sure she did not consent, are you sure that Calvin Rosevear, in counts one and two, and Joe Skewes, in counts three through five, did not reasonably believe that she consented?”

He added that it did not necessarily follow that if the jury found a defendant “guilty” on one count he was “guilty” of all, and likewise if it found a defendant “not guilty” » of one count, he was “not guilty” of all.

Mr Beal said the complainant was “very drunk” on the night in question, adding that this came from several sources – from the complainant herself, her friends and two passers-by who found the trio on the steps of the church, one of whom described the woman as being “drunk”.

“On the (CCTV and mobile phone) footage you can see her stumbling. Bumping into people. You might think that the CCTV footage showing her bent over at the waist means she’s ill,” said Mr Beal, who added that this happened just five minutes before she met the defendants.

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

Mr Beal said: “The complainant’s intoxication is important,” the prosecution says. “Whether or not she consented and whether the defendants reasonably believed she consented.”

“As far as consent goes, the prosecution says she did not consent. She was content to accept what they were doing. »

He said that in such situations there were five possible responses: fight, flight, freeze, collapse or fall.

“Submission is not 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 one missed call at 2.10am and another at 2.27am.

The court previously heard that the complainant left the Beehive pub just after 2am to be sick and returned just before 2.30am with passers-by who found her.

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

Nigel Wraith, Rosevear’s defense lawyer, cited the words of a passerby who passed the complainant and two defendants on the church steps: “Come on, you’re better than that.” »

He said those words could also apply to Rosevear and Skewes, explaining: “We’ve heard from people who think highly of them. It wasn’t their best moment. But as you have heard, this is not a court of morality, it is a court of law.

“If you were here to judge them on their level of behavior, I imagine you would find them very bad indeed.

“But that’s not what we’re here to judge.” What we are here to judge is whether you are sure that the two men committed the criminal offenses with which they are charged. »

Mr Wraith said there was no evidence to suggest either man knew anything about the complainant’s condition before they met on the steps (next to the museum).

He referred to one of the complainant’s friends who told the court that after being ill, “she was much better after getting the alcohol out of her system.”

Mr Wraith said CCTV footage confirmed this, adding: “We don’t see her stumbling and perhaps she made a little effort to pull herself together before she went to speak to the defendant.

“She may not be very coordinated, but she’s able to stand in front of them on those cobblestones for three minutes before sitting down between them. »

Regarding the men who touched her breasts or put their faces to them while they sat on the steps of the museum, Mr Wraith said: “The prosecution says she was so drunk she didn’t realize what was happening was sexual, but his comment to the police was: “He clearly wanted to get something from me while we were sitting on those steps.”

He also pointed out that the cemetery steps were in an area surrounded by houses, saying that if the two men did not believe it was consensual: “Aren’t you going to find a quiet corner somewhere in the deviation from the path which serves as a trench? -through?

“Down here, there is a road that people walk along. They didn’t go any higher, they didn’t go to a dark corner of the cemetery. »

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

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

“But we have seen the images. She has her handbag on her shoulder, her hair is always up. Her makeup isn’t smudging and she’s wearing what appears to be her sweater or cardigan on her arm. The same arm that is in a sling four days later when she gives her testimony to the police because, according to her friend, she told him that her hand was broken or fractured.

Mr Taylor also said the complainant remained in town for an hour after returning to the Beehive following the alleged incident, before getting in a taxi to go home.

The jury is now out to consider verdicts on each charge.

The trial continues.