Alleged victim of Michael Le Vell not ‘hellbent on revenge’

Closing the trial at Manchester crown court, prosecutor Eleanor Laws QC told the jury of eight women and four men that there was no reason for the alleged victim to lie.

Mr Le Vell, who is being tried under his real name Michael Turner, is accused of sexually assaulting and raping a young girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Le Vell, 48, denies five counts of rape, there of indecent assault, two counts of sexual activity with a child, and two of causing a child to engage in sexual activity.

Ms Laws told the jury to concentrate on the evidence they had heard, rather than the “witch-hunt” among celebrities in recent times.

“No-one likes to think that someone they liked or admired has done anything like this,” she said.

However, she said that Mr Le Vell had only come up with one reason for the allegations and that was revenge against him.

That reason was “absurd”, she said. The alleged victim was not “bitter” or “troubled”.

Instead, what the alleged victim had told the court was the “uncomfortable truth”, Ms Laws said.

“It is absolutely the truth,” she added. “There is no other reason that holds water”.

Miss Laws said: “Bear in mind what this witness has put herself through over a long period of time.

“What has she got to gain from all of that? Absolutely nothing, unless it is the truth and that is what she wants to tell you.

“If you are sure that she is telling the truth and not lying, then it is your duty to mark her courage from the witness box with convictions.”

‘No evidence’

However, in his closing speech for the defence, Alisdair Williamson argued that it was a “strange case of child rape” that had no evidence of blood, semen or injuries.

Mr Williamson suggested the girl had given differing accounts of the frequency and details of the alleged abuse to her mother, her friends and to the police.

“You are going to throw a man’s life away? You are going to cast him to the outer darkness of being a child rapist?” Mr Williamson continued.

He accused the girl of making “silly” or “ridiculous” details in her story that “doesn’t add up”.

He added: “There’s an agonising lack of detail from this witness.

“She can’t give you details because it did not happen and that’s why her story varies according to who she’s talking to.”

Mr Williamson said the defendant was a “drunk, bad husband and inadequate father” whose behaviour was sometimes “terrible”, but he is not a child rapist.

He said no child pornography was found on Mr Le Vell’s computer, no adults he knew were saying he was “odd” or they felt “uneasy” around him – “the sort of evidence these courts hear all the time”, the barrister added.

“Nothing to support this girl’s inconsistent, incoherent and unbelievable account.”

Mr Williamson said the girl had been described as a “lovely” and polite, well-brought up youngster.

“I’m sure she is,” he said, “but she’s damaged.”

‘Good character’

He continued: “This has been, you may have thought, a prosecution by cliche.

“Mr Turner drinks a lot, he has his demons. What’s that supposed to mean?

“He has troubles. What’s that supposed to mean?

“That’s all the Crown can come up with for a motive.”

Summing up the trial, Judge Michael Henshell said both Le Vell and the alleged victim were distressed at times as they gave evidence.

But he told them: “Do not allow sympathy to cloud your judgment for either side.”

Signs of distress in the witness box were not a reliable guide to the truth, he said.

He told the jury that a “late complaint” of abuse did not necessarily mean it was false, while conversely an immediate complaint was not always true.

The alleged victim’s state of mind and maturity at the time of the allegations should be taken into account, while Le Vell deserved to be treated as a man of good character having not previously been arrested.