Jury To Weigh Consent In West Bay Road Rape Trial As Counsel Deliver Closing Addresses
Alric Lindsay 
By Alric Lindsay
A man accused of raping a woman in the back of a car on West Bay road in December 2024 acted with her consent — or at the very least believed she was consenting — his defence counsel told a Grand Court jury today, July 28, 2026, as prosecution and defence closed their cases and left the jury to decide who to believe.
Pulmurugan Paulraj is charged with a single count of rape, alleged to have taken place in December 2024 in the West Bay Road area. He denies the charge. The trial, before Acting Justice Palmer and a jury, has run for less than a week.
Both sides told the jury today, July 28, 2026, that the fact of sexual intercourse is not in dispute — Paulraj accepts intercourse took place. The single question at the heart of the trial, both counsel agreed, is consent: whether the woman consented, and if she did not, whether Paulraj knew she was not consenting or was reckless as to whether she was.
The Crown’s closing address
Crown Counsel Kenneth Ferguson, of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the jury that although this had been “a very short trial,” their task was “very important,” and reminded them that Paulraj had elected to be tried by a judge and jury — “assessed by the members of his community.”
Ferguson set out the three elements of rape that the Crown had to prove:
- that Paulraj had sexual intercourse with the complainant — which, he noted, “is not in dispute on either side”;
- that the intercourse took place without the complainant’s consent; and
- that at the time, Paulraj knew she was not consenting, or was reckless as to whether she consented.
It was, he said, “the latter aspect of the third element” — Paulraj’s state of mind — together with consent, on which the case turned. The Crown, he reminded the jury, brought the case and had to make them “feel sure” of Paulraj’s guilt; if left with any reasonable doubt, they must acquit.
Ferguson told the jury there was “no requirement that the absence of consent has to be demonstrated or … communicated to the defendant,” and no requirement that the complainant “was … incapable of saying no or putting up some physical resistance, or did say no or put up some physical resistance.”
He urged the jury not to judge the complainant’s behaviour against assumptions about how a victim “should” act. “Victims of sexual assault react in different ways” — some will fight off the attacker, “others will freeze and submit,” and some do not tell anyone for days, weeks or months. He invited jurors “not to draw any stereotypical views or to make any assumptions” and not to say to themselves “I wouldn’t have done that … in those circumstances,” but to “assess the evidence that has been presented … and decide the case on the evidence.” He added, “there is no stereotypical rapist and there is no stereotypical victim.”
He also cautioned the jury against speculating about how much the complainant had had to drink, telling them there was no scientific evidence of her level of intoxication and they “must not be drawn into speculation.”
Ferguson described the CCTV footage from the venue as important independent evidence to determine what happened. He told the jury the case ultimately turned on the complainant’s account measured against that of Paulraj, supported by the surrounding evidence.
The defence closing address
Defence counsel Lee Halliday‑Davis urged the jury to test the reliability of the complainant’s account, arguing that the Crown’s case rested almost entirely on her word — “there is no eye witness … there is no confession … it’s only her account” — and that her account was undermined at almost every turn by independent, objective evidence.
She took the jury through what she said were repeated inconsistencies and untruths about small details — including how and when Paulraj obtained the complainant’s phone number, and the complainant’s account of throwing a set of keys “in the bush,” which, defence counsel said, the CCTV contradicted. “Why tell a lie about something so small?” she asked, arguing that such discrepancies went directly to “the credibility and the reliability” of the complainant’s evidence. The complainant, she submitted, “lied about every small detail,” and “every time independent, objective evidence was brought to this case,” it cut against her account.
Ms Halliday‑Davis relied heavily on the CCTV footage, contrasting it with the complainant’s description of being led, stumbling, to the car. On the footage, she said, the woman “wasn’t dragged, she wasn’t steered” — she “walked in front of him,” “walking strongly,” holding her phone and her hat and talking, with Paulraj’s hand resting on her shoulder rather than forcing or directing her. Defence counsel also pointed to footage after the alleged rape in which, she said, the complainant got out of the car first and waited at the back of the car for Paulraj, then returned toward the car — behaviour she invited the jury to weigh against the account of a woman who said she had just been raped.
Turning to the complainant’s suggestion that she had been compromised by alcohol, defence counsel took the jury through the food and drink consumed over what she said was an eight‑hour period — sushi, tempura, appetisers, nachos, tacos, cake and water — and argued the complainant “was not compromised.” She reminded the jury that when the complainant was later seen by a doctor, she was described as “alert, orientated,” with good recall.
On the medical evidence, Ms Halliday‑Davis noted that the doctors — one called by the Crown and one by the defence— could not say whether intercourse had taken place with or without consent.
She reminded the jury that Paulraj had given evidence — despite English not being his first language — and submitted that his account was supported in material respects, including by the evidence of the complainant’s own companion. Given what she called the “substantial” inconsistencies and “demonstrably inaccurate assertions,” and the lack of supporting evidence on the central issue, defence counsel submitted that the Crown had not made the jury sure of Paulraj’s guilt.
What happens next
Following the closing addresses, Acting Justice Palmer began his summing‑up to the jury, directing them on the law and reminding them that the speeches of counsel are not evidence. The summing‑up is expected to continue on July 29, after which the jury will retire to consider its verdict. No verdict has been reached, and Paulraj is presumed innocent.
