Here is a breakdown of what the prosecution has to prove in respect of each count on the indictment in the trial of Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding, Blane McIlroy and Rory Harrison.
All of the defendants deny all of the charges against them.
Count 1 is a count of rape and it relates only to Paddy Jackson.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Paddy Jackson intentionally used his penis to penetrate the complainant's vagina
- The complainant did not consent
- Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting when he penetrated her
Judge Patricia Smyth said: "What you have to decide is whether the prosecution have made you sure that at the time Patrick Jackson penetrated (the complainant) she did not consent to it.
"If you are not sure that (the complainant) did not consent to penetration then you must find the defendant not guilty of count 1.
"If on the other hand you are sure that she did not consent to the penetration then you must go on and consider the third element of the offence of rape.
"That is, you have to ask yourselves whether you are sure that Patrick Jackson did not reasonably believe that she consented."
Count 2 is a count of sexual assault by penetration and also relates to Paddy Jackson.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Paddy Jackson intentionally digitally penetrated the complainant
- The penetration was sexual
- The complainant did not consent to the penetration
- Paddy Jackson did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting
"He says that (the complainant) consented to the penetration and that he reasonably believed that she was consenting.
"(The complainant) says that she did not consent to the penetration and that Patrick Jackson did not reasonably believe that she was consenting."
Count 3 is a count of rape and relates to Stuart Olding.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Stuart Olding intentionally used his penis to penetrate the complainant's mouth
- The complainant did not consent to that penetration
- Stuart Olding did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting when he penetrated her
Judge Smyth: "Stuart Olding does not dispute that he intentionally put his penis into (the complainant's) mouth. He says that (the complainant) consented and that he reasonably believed that she was consenting when he penetrated her.
"The complainant says that she did not consent and that she was forced to put Mr Olding's penis in her mouth and to perform oral sex upon him. She says that he did not reasonably believe that she was consenting when he put his penis in her mouth."
Count 4 is a count of exposure and relates to Blane McIlroy.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Blane McIlroy intentionally exposed his genitals
- He intended the complainant to see them and be caused alarm or distress
Judge Smyth said: "Blane McIlroy denies that he entered the bedroom naked or that he intended (the complainant) to see his genitals or to be caused alarm or distress. He says he was fully clothed when he entered the bedroom and that (the complainant) invited him to stay and performed oral sex upon him.
"(The complainant) says there was no sexual activity between them. She says Mr McIlroy entered the room naked, holding his penis and hoping to join in sexual activity. She says she jumped off the bed, grabbed her trousers and pushed past him onto the hallway before running down the stairs."
Count 5 is a count of perverting the course of justice and relates to Rory Harrison.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- On a date between June 27 2016 and July 1 2016, Rory Harrison made a witness statement in which he lied about his dealings with the complainant or deliberately omitted information in the statement relevant to the police investigation
- The lie or omission had a tendency to pervert the course of justice
- That Rory Harrison intended to pervert the course of justice
Judge Smyth said: "The prosecution relies on pieces of evidence relating to different circumstances, none of which on their own directly proves that Mr Harrison is guilty but which, say the prosecution, when taken together leave no doubt that Mr Harrison is guilty.
"The defence do not accept that the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt."
Count 6 is a count of withholding information and relates to Rory Harrison.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Between June 27 2016 and October 5 2016:
- the offence of rape had been committed
- Rory Harrison knew or believed that the offence of rape had been committed
And:
- Rory Harrison knew or believed that he had information which was likely to secure or be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person of that offence
- Without reasonable excuse, Rory Harrison failed to give that information within a reasonable time to a constable
Judge Smyth said: "As with all of the counts on the indictment, you can only find Mr Harrison guilty of each offence if you are sure that the prosecution has proved each element of the offence."
Read more:
'There is no stereotype for a rape, a rapist or a victim of rape', judge tells jury
My client is not a weasel, Rory Harrison's barrister tells jury
Drunken consent is still consent, Paddy Jackson's barrister tells jury
There was no rape by my client, Stuart Olding's barrister tells jury
What happened was a throw back to the days of male entitlement, prosecution tells jury
