A woman who says she engaged in sex acts with a celebrity when she was 16 has denied a suggestion from a defence barrister that she was never in the accused man's house.
On the second day of her cross-examination, it was put to the woman that she had never been in his home and that she was unable to point out the house to gardaí.
The man, who is now in his 40s and who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 17 at locations in Dublin on dates between August 2010 and December 2010.
He denies all of the charges against him. The court was told at the time of the alleged offences he was 27 and the complainant was 16.
The woman has told the court she met the defendant at a music festival when she was 16 and while she at first lied about her age, she later "came clean" and told him she was 16.
She said while she was still 16 he had taken her to his work place and twice to his home while she was still underage and that oral sex had taken place.
A casual sexual relationship continued after she was 17, she said.
In the witness box for a second day, she again denied that she only revealed her true age to the defendant after she had turned 17.
Defence Counsel Morgan Shelley BL put it to the woman that his client would say nothing had ever happened in the stairwell of his workplace, as to do so would have been an "enormous risk".
The woman said it was a weekend and there were not many people in the building when they went to the bottom of a fire escape type stairwell and while it would have been a risk, it did happen.
She also insisted that he had been in his house twice in 2010 as a 16-year-old, but said she could not point out the house to gardaí years later as she had not been paying attention when he had taken her there. On one of those occasions, she said she was "quite drunk".
It was put to her that no sexual activity had taken place and that she had never been in his house.
Woman insists she was in defendant's home
It was also put to her that the date of one of the alleged meetings, which she said coincided with a concert, was incorrect as the defendant would not have been at home as he was recording a show. The woman again insisted that she had been to the defendant's house.
It was also put to her that she had mentioned to gardaí about the defendant telling her he got clear braces on his teeth. Mr Shelley said this statement was made in the context of the allegations she made claiming she was 16 at the time.
He said their evidence would show the defendant did not get braces until just before she turned 17 the following year.
The woman said she did not know when exactly he got the braces and was trying to give as much information as possible to gardaí when making her statement, but did not have an exact time frame.
It was put to her that the first time there was anything remotely flirtatious between them was when the defendant asked in a text message when she was over 18 if she would like to go "on a proper date".
Defence counsel pointed out that on that date there had been sexual activity and asked "why would he bother asking you on proper date if the outcome was the same as the previous occasions that you allege?" The woman replied that it was because before that they never went on dates or went for coffee. She said they only went to his workplace or his home.
Woman and defendant maintained contact until 2020
She agreed that in the years that followed she had met the defendant as recently as 2019 and had "warmly greeted him" and had been in contact with him through Instagram until 2020.
Towards the end of her cross-examination, Mr Shelley put it to her that she was never in the man's work place until 2011, she replied: "I was."
"Nothing of a sexual nature took place there," he said, to which the woman replied: "It did."
"Nothing ever happened in his house," counsel said. The woman replied: "It did on two occasions in 2010."
"You were simply never in that house", he said. The woman replied: "I was."
Mr Shelley also said the defendant could not have been there at that time. The woman replied: "He was and I was there with him."
Two friends of the complainant also gave evidence today to say she had told them about meeting the defendant at the Oxegen festival in 2010.
One friend said the woman told her about the sexual activity in a stairwell at his workplace. She said she found it shocking as they were still very young and it was such a public place.
She also remembered her friend leaving her alone at a concert while she allegedly went to see the defendant for some time. She said the tickets had been left at the box office for them by the defendant. Her friend had gone to "thank him" for getting them the tickets and she was annoyed that she had been gone for so long.
Another friend said she was aware that the defendant had wanted to keep the relationship secret and that is why she never met him. She said she was not particularly supportive of the relationship because she knew her friend was underage.
Opening the case for the prosecution yesterday, Senior Counsel Eilis Brennan told the jury the accused was charged with the offence of defilement of a child.
She explained that the term means performing certain sexual acts with a child under the age of 17.
Ms Brennan said the charge was brought under the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act of 2006, which makes it an offence to perform such acts and was there to protect children.
She said the complainant in the case was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offences and the defendant was 27.
She said in these cases it was not a defence to say there was consent from the child but a defence of "reasonable belief" as to a person's age could be raised.
The trial continues.
