A VERDICT on the case of a man accused of raping a woman in her home is due to be delivered today. Summing up yesterday on the fourth day of the Royal Court trial, Crown Advocate Graeme McKerrell, prosecuting, said that the woman was telling the truth. If the Jurats did not believe that, they would have to acquit the defendant, who denied raping the woman between 5.30am and 6am on 31 May last year. Medical evidence proved that intercourse had occurred.

Mr McKerrell asked whether it was credible that a person would consent to sex with a complete stranger when the night before she had been put to bed by her long-term partner who was still in the house.

The fiance had helped her to undress because she was extremely drunk after having a meal and wine the night before.

She said that she was woken up by the weight of the defendant, whom she had never seen before, on top of her, having sex with her. She said she shouted: ‘Who the hell are you? What are you doing? Get off,’ and tried to push him clear.

Mr McKerrell said that this was a clear indication that the woman was not consenting to sex.

She had also told her fiance that when she came to, the defendant was on top of her and that initially he was ‘spooning’ her – cuddling her from behind with her being unable to see his face. This was confirmation that she was aware of what was happening, and with whom, only when it was too late, said Mr McKerrell. ‘A person cannot consent to something that they are not aware is happening,’ he said.

Independent forensic gynaecologist Dr Catherine Paterson said that she believed it was possible for a person not to properly awaken due to physical contact. It was natural to expect that the person in bed was their partner and to react accordingly. People could also become sexually aroused during sleep.

Neither party had any injuries after the incident, but injuries were not necessarily a feature of such an offence, she said.

Mr McKerrell questioned why the defendant had drunkenly gatecrashed the party and had headed straight upstairs in the wrong house when he claimed to be looking for partygoers, but defending Advocate Peter Ferbrache said that this was not uncommon behaviour for young people – the accused is 29.

Advocate Ferbrache said that the fact the defendant ended up in a bed in which he had no right to sleep and then had sex with a woman he did not know was not rape.

He said that the woman’s evidence in court that there was no ‘spooning’ differed from what she allegedly told her fiance. To say that there was initially meant that she must have been aware of what was happening.

There was no forensic or independent evidence to support the allegation. Advocate Febrache said that Dr Paterson’s evidence did not support either side.

The Jurats had to be absolutely sure that the woman did not consent to sex and that the defendant knew this or was reckless as to whether she did or not.

If he genuinely believed that that she consented, even though he might have been mistaken, he had to be acquitted.

A statement from the fiance said that he had never had sex with his partner when she was asleep and that they rarely had intercourse in the morning.

Advocate Ferbrache said that the fiance said that he would have expected to be able to hear a shout from upstairs, but he did not hear one.