AT Swansea Crown Court on Friday morning (Oct 18), His Honour Judge Huw Rees addressed the case involving Nathan John, accused of seven sexual offences including two counts of rape against two 16-year-old girls in Pembrokeshire.

Judge Rees provided crucial guidance on how the jury should evaluate the evidence.

In his address, Judge Rees stressed that the complainants did not know each other before the incidents and that there was no evidence to suggest any conspiracy or collusion between them. This clarification was pivotal in framing the context of the allegations. “He accepted that the complainants did not know each other,” Judge Rees stated. “He accepted that there had been no challenge or suggestion that the complainants colluded together.”

The evidence presented to the jury included body camera footage from the initial incident, arrest footage of the defendant in Haverfordwest, and recordings from two Ring doorbells.

Judge Rees also shared the defendant’s statement regarding the first complaint. According to John’s account, the complainant had accused him of non-consensual behaviour, which left him feeling “scared” and “overwhelmed.” He described an emotional reaction, stating that he cried for approximately five minutes after the incident and that he struggled to comprehend the situation and the accusations against him.

John’s statement included, “Complaint one started making accusations, she said it was not consensual. I felt scared, overwhelmed, everything. She left and went the other way, I was on the floor crying for five minutes. I don’t remember her being present. I went back to circles; I was still panicked but calmed myself down at that point. I was concerned about what she said about the sex; I was concerned that things would be a problem for me the next day.”

He continued, “After she told me she was going to tell everyone, my head was all fuzzy. After that conversation, I didn’t see her again.” During a police interview, John mentioned feeling embarrassed discussing his private life in front of his mother, and although he acknowledged the opportunity to speak more openly with the police, he was uncertain about how to proceed. “At no stage did I believe she was not consenting, I did believe she was consenting,” he added.

Judge Rees then turned to John’s statement regarding the second complaint. The defendant described his social habits, noting that he often spent time with friends in Haverfordwest, where he also worked as a barber and attended college part-time. He recounted the events of May 16, when the second complainant approached him, leading to what he described as a consensual kiss and subsequent interactions.

In his statement, John explained, “May 16 of this year, she came up to me and asked where I was going. I was heading to the train station, and she was going to Tesco’s. I asked if she wanted company, knowing that I was going the opposite direction. There was no connection between us other than friendship. I felt a bit iffy and thought I was going to be sick, but I was not. The complainant asked if I was alright, then we exchanged a kiss. It was a consensual exchange, 100%. We continued flirting and kissing at the top of the steps.”

He further claimed, “We kissed again and then took things further.”

Judge Rees reminded the jury of their responsibility to reach a unanimous verdict, highlighting the importance of thoroughly considering all evidence and testimonies. “You should now concentrate on reaching a unanimous verdict,” he instructed. He emphasised that the jury should take their time and that there was no pressure to rush their decision. “No one is looking at the clock. Take whatever time you need to reach a true verdict. You are now retired to consider your verdict, please.”

The jury has since retired to deliberate on the case, tasked with reaching a verdict that reflects a careful and thorough examination of the facts presented in court.