Knifepoint rape reported in Sheffield city centre 40 years ago could be a 'fabrication', court told
Juors have been told a rape reported more than 40 years ago could have been ‘fabricated’.
Over the past week, jurors at Sheffield Crown Court have been listening to evidence presented about an alleged rape reported back in September, 1985.
David Hill, aged 76, is on trial accused of threatening a woman in her 20s - who The Star has chosen not to name - with a knife, before raping her in a car park in Barker’s Pool.
He denies the charge.
Yesterday (February 12), barristers took their final chance to address the jury before they are sent out to deliberate.
“On September 6, 1985, [the complainant] went on a night out with her two friends,” Louise Revell, for the Crown Prosecution Service, told jurors.
“As she left the club alone in the early hours and returned to her car, she says she was approached from behind and threatened with a knife.”
The prosecuting barrister went over the evidence previously presented, reminding the court of the complainant’s statement provided the day after the alleged incident, where she detailed leaving the nightclub Josephine’s, before being raped in her car.
The complainant died in the 90s, jurors have previously been told, meaning she was unable to be cross-examined during the trial.
Ms Revell referred to witness statements provided by the complainant’s then-husband and best friend, where they described her as being ‘in bits’ after the alleged attack, asking: “Is all of this put on to fabricate some kind of rape? Of course not.”
She went on to highlight evidence presented by forensic scientist Laura Lewis last week.
She reminded jurors that DNA evidence gathered from the complainant’s clothes after the alleged incident was said to have been ‘one billion times more likely’ to have come from David Hill than anyone else.
A description of the attacker provided by the complainant was brought up, which the prosecution said lined up with pictures of Hill from the time.
In his closing speech, defence barrister Dermot Hughes claimed that the scientific evidence cannot determine whether or not Hill and complainant’s relationship was consensual.
When he was arrested in 2022, Hill, of Clifton Bank, Rotherham, presented a pre-prepared statement saying that he had never raped anyone, but admitted to having sexual relationships with married women and going out in Sheffield city centre at the time, the court had previously been told.
Mr Hughes said that the complainant was not seen to have had any injuries after the incident, despite the claim a knife was held against her.
He then raised concern about a loss of evidence over the years, including a photofit said to have been provided to the press in the 80s, examinations of the complainant’s car including fingerprints, and CCTV footage from outside the nightclub.
“All that material documentation that would assist you in getting to the truth is not there,” he told jurors.
“The defendant of course denies any suggestion that he is a rapist,” Judge Hampton told jurors.
“He accepts that he must have had sex with [the complainant] given the scientific evidence.
“The acceptance of such was perhaps signposted by his account in interview, where he provided a pre-prepared statement saying that he engaged in sexual activity with married women in the 1980s, consensually.”
He provided an overview of the evidence presented during the trial and reminded jurors that it is their responsibility to interpret it.
“The Crown says it provides a compelling picture that David Hill was the attacker all those years ago,” he added.
He laid out the prosecution’s claim that Hill had the opportunity to commit the alleged crime and frequented the area where it occurred.
The judge pointed out that the prosecution have said focus should be placed on existing evidence, not that which was lost, adding: “On the basis of that, the Crown say you can be sure it was this defendant who was the perpetrator.”
In going through the defence’s case, Judge Hampton continued: “The defence say you cannot be sure of the circumstances as described by [the complainant] - cannot rule out this is a fabrication, she made it all up
“They posit the theory that she had sex and regretted in and then embarked upon this lie.
“The defence say that each piece of the DNA evidence is open to interpretation and when you look at it you cannot be sure that the defendant was [the complainant’s] attacker.”
Jurors are expected to begin deliberations today.