Queen v Vaiciulus & Anor

[2] ������ B was 10 days short of his 17th birthday at the time of the offence and 18 years old when he was sentenced. A was 16 years and four months old at the time of the offence and 2 days short of his 18th birthday when he was sentenced. The victim was 17 years and 11 days old when the offence was committed. She lived in the Republic of Ireland but was staying with her friend in County Down. On the evening of 18 July 2010, they and some friends went to a nightclub in County Down. On that evening the victim consumed alcohol and was separated from her friends at the night club.

[4]������� Later, the three females in the car tried to find the victim again as they were concerned about her. They found her at 12.30am up a laneway with the two males. They said the victim was in a dishevelled state and appeared to be crying. The victim spoke to the girls and responded to their questions. She named her friend �C� and agreed she wanted them to find her friend. The girls agreed that the victim was able to understand their questions and appeared to be more responsive than she had appeared earlier. They drove off to try to find the victim�s friend.

[5]������� The three females in the car later noticed the two males with the victim coming from the laneway to the nightclub. Her skirt was now up to her waist and she had no pants on. Her legs were cut and she was covered in mud. They observed one of the males slap the victim on her backside to get her on the footpath and she was then left on the ground by the night club. The three females assisted the victim to find her friends and drove them back to the home of the victim�s friend.

[6] ������ The victim had limited memory of the events. In police interviews the appellants told the police they both tried to have vaginal sex with the applicant but couldn�t due to her awkward position. They told the police the victim performed oral sex on both of them and that they both digitally penetrated the victim�s vagina. Both agreed that they had kissed the victim. Both appellants said the victim consented to all of the sexual activities carried out between them.

[7] ������ The appellants� skeleton arguments state that CCTV footage from a local nursery appeared to show the appellants touching the complainant in a sexual manner and that Count 4 was based on the activity seen on the CCTV footage rather than on the admissions set out in the preceding paragraph. The appellants say it is clear from the timing on the camera together with other timings available that the activity captured on the CCTV footage came after the events which formed the basis of counts 1 to 3.