THE JURY will soon retire deliberate in the trial of 19-year-old Nathan John, a Milford Haven resident accused of raping two 16-year-old girls — one in Milford Haven and the other in Haverfordwest.

The charges stem from two separate incidents, the first occurring in October 2022 and the second in May 2024.

John, of Richard John Road, Milford Haven, faces a total of seven sexual charges, including two charges of rape. He denies all seven offences. He took the stand on Wednesday (Oct 16) to give his account of events under oath. Dressed in a white shirt and black tie, he described the night of the first attack, which allegedly took place on 2nd October 2022.

The defendant testified that he and the first complainant had a friendly relationship, exchanging messages and attending the same college. On the night in question, John said he encountered the complainant at Nos Da Bar on Victoria Road while out with friends. He admitted consuming several alcoholic drinks, including a pint of Coors, four apple sours, two apple cokes, and a Jägerbomb.

According to John, he and the complainant shared a kiss at the bar before parting ways. Later, at Circles Nightclub, John claimed the complainant approached him again, and he offered to walk her home. He told the court that they were “having a laugh” before engaging in what he insists was consensual sexual intercourse. John said that a disagreement arose afterward when the complainant suggested the encounter was non-consensual. He added that he felt guilty because he had been unfaithful to his then-partner and that the complainant initially promised to keep the incident secret before changing her mind, which he found confusing.

The court was shown video footage from police bodycams taken at the time of John’s arrest. In the footage, John is heard crying and saying, “I don’t know what I have done, I just got excited,” while experiencing what was described as a panic attack. He also stated, “You can’t arrest me because there was consent, this has happened before, I haven’t done anything…”

The prosecution, led by James Hartson of Angel Chambers, questioned John about the second alleged incident on 16th May 2024, in Haverfordwest. The court heard that this second complainant was also 16 years old at the time. John admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse with her on a platform halfway up a set of steps off Castle Square but maintained that the interaction was consensual. He described the two as flirting throughout the evening and claimed he called the complainant “beautiful” before they shared a kiss.

However, John said that when the complainant asked to stop midway through the encounter, he complied. He admitted that his remark, calling the complainant “a dirty girl,” may have offended her, but clarified that it was meant as “sex talk.” John told the court that at no point did he use force or violence, nor did the complainant shout for help.

Forensic evidence was presented to the court, including swabs taken from both complainants. The first complainant’s oral swabs revealed the presence of male DNA, indicating oral ejaculation, while no semen was detected on vaginal swabs. John’s DNA was also found on genital swabs. In the case of the second complainant, male DNA was detected on the internal vaginal swab, which the defence argued supported John’s claim of consensual intercourse.

During cross-examination, Hartson suggested that John became aggressive after consuming alcohol on both occasions. He also highlighted inconsistencies in John’s statements, particularly in his initial police interview, where John denied any sexual contact rather than claiming it was consensual. The prosecution accused John of “spinning a web of lies,” arguing that his behaviour was driven by alcohol-fuelled aggression.

The jury was reminded of key evidence, including the first complainant’s detailed memory of her jacket being thrown to the ground during the alleged attack—information which the prosecution argued was “very precise.”

The jury will shortly to consider its verdict, with the outcome of the case expected in the coming days.

(The image used in this article, is not a photograph, but an artists impression of the defendant in the dock – as cameras are not allowed in court)