Man Denies Indecent Assault & Defilement of Girl Under 16 On Day 1 of Trial

By Alric Lindsay

A man pled not guilty to eleven charges at the opening of his trial in the Grand Court before Justice Richards today, August 24, 2026, and the jury spent much of the first day watching the video-recorded police interview given by the complainant, who was 15 at the time.

The charges are two of defilement of a girl under 16, two of assault by penetration, one of indecent assault, four of common assault, one of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, and one of damaging property. The case is expected to last about a week.

Opening for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, counsel told the jury that the complainant and the defendant were in a relationship that began in February 2025 and continued until January 2026. The prosecution case is that she was 15 for most of that period, turning 16 in October 2025, and that he was 24. A girl under 16 cannot in law consent to sexual activity, and it is on that basis that the defilement counts are brought. DPP Crown Counsel says the defendant knew her age because she had told him.

The jury was told the relationship began well and later deteriorated. The prosecution alleges a series of assaults during it: an occasion on which the complainant was grabbed by the neck and choked until she briefly lost consciousness, which is the allegation behind the count of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent; a separate occasion on which she was struck; a slap to the face in the week before she first went to police; and the damage to  her mobile phone.

On the sexual counts, DPP Crown Counsel’s case is that the two had intercourse on two occasions at the complainant’s home while she was 15, that she performed oral sex on the defendant twice, and that on one occasion he performed oral sex on her. Those allegations underlie the two defilement counts, the two counts of assault by penetration and the count of indecent assault respectively.

The first report to police was made on October 27, 2025, after an argument at the defendant’s home. DPP Crown Counsel says officers who attended found the complainant distressed, crying, with red marks to her arms, back and chest and swelling to her face, and that the defendant, who appeared uninjured, told them he had been defending himself. A second report followed an incident on January 9, 2026, when the prosecution alleges the defendant used his fist to push the complainant’s head into a pillow.

The defendant was interviewed under caution after both reports, with an attorney present, and answered no comment to questions about the allegations.

Nothing said in an opening speech is evidence. It is the prosecution’s account of the case it intends to prove, and the jury was reminded that the burden rests entirely on DPP Crown Counsel and that the defendant need prove nothing. No defence case has yet been opened.

The complainant’s evidence is being given in two parts. The first is a video interview recorded by police the day after her first report, conducted under the achieving best evidence procedure used for children and vulnerable witnesses. It was conducted by a detective from the police Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, with a social worker present, and runs to about an hour and forty minutes. It was played to the jury across Monday afternoon and had been played in full by the time the court rose.

Before it was played, the judge directed the jury that evidence given in this way must be treated in exactly the same way as evidence given from the witness box, that the use of such measures is commonplace and reflects nothing on the defendant, and that they should watch it as though hearing it live, since they would see it only once and would not have the video in the deliberation room. Jurors were given a written transcript to follow but told it would be taken back once the witness’s evidence was complete, that they would not have it during deliberations, and that where the transcript and what they saw or heard differ, what they saw and heard prevails. The evidence, the judge said, is the video and not the transcript.

In the interview the complainant described the argument that preceded her call to police, which she said began after she looked at messages on the defendant’s phone. She described being pushed, being grabbed by the neck, and being pulled by her clothing towards the door of the house, and said she fell. She said items in the house were picked up during the argument. She described an earlier occasion on which she said her phone was smashed. She was asked about the sexual allegations and said she had not been the one to initiate. She was also asked what the defendant’s family understood her age to be.

The second part of her evidence is still to come  on Tuesday. The trial continues.

Note to readers

Reporting restrictions apply. The parties cannot be identified.