The jury are out in the ‘extraordinary’ case of the woman accused of tricking her female friend into sex, while disguised as a man.
Gayle Newland, 25, is accused of adopting the online male persona of Kye Fortune before tricking the complainant into wearing a blindfold and sexually assaulting her with a prosthetic penis.
Newland, of Hooton Road in Willaston, Neston, denies five charges of sexual assault and claims her accuser ‘always knew’ she was having sex with a woman.
Judge Roger Dutton told the jury, at Chester Crown Court, the issue of fantasy or role-play was key to the case.
Earlier in the trial Newland claimed that text and internet messages about Kye’s health were all part of an elaborate fantasy, to make the complainant feel more comfortable about being with a woman.
He said: “This is the central issue in this case isn’t it? This role-playing, you may think, became extraordinarily complex, but did it become extraordinarily complex because only one side thought it was role-play?”
He reminded the jury that Newland said she first met the complainant in a nightclub, where they told each other they were gay.
She also maintains that when the complainant admitted being awkward about her sexuality, Newland told her she used the online persona of Kye to talk to girls.
She claimed that the facebook page of Kye Fortune received a friend request from the complainant a few days later.
The prosecution allege that the woman was contacted first by Kye, and that Kye introduced Newland as a friend.
Judge Dutton repeated Newland’s claim that the complainant never wore a blindfold and ‘always knew’ it was a prosthetic penis.
Describing the case as ‘extraordinary’, he asked the jury to consider whether the complainant’s evidence was the truth or a ‘tissue of complex lies’.
The jury heard the first two counts relate to sexual encounters in two separate hotels during February 2013.
On both these occasions Newland is alleged to have sexually assaulted the complainant with the prosthetic penis.
Judge Dutton told the jury that if the complainant only agreed to have sex with Newland ‘by deception’, then no consent could have been given.
However he said: “If you are not sure there was any operating deception at all, then there is no question of a conviction.”
The jury were also reminded of the defence claim that the prosthetic penis was only bought in April, according to bank records and could not have been used in the first two counts.
Earlier in the trial Nigel Power, QC, defending, told the jury this meant the allegations relating to February were ‘dead in the water’.
The third count, known in law as a specimen count, encompasses multiple sexual encounters involving the prosthetic penis at the complainant’s flat.
Count four relates to a specific occasion on June 30, 2013, when the complainant alleges she “ripped off her mask” and discovered the truth.
The final count relates to oral sex on June 30. The defendant claims although the pair had oral sex during the course of their relationship, it did not take place on this date.
Judge Dutton told the jury: “You need to take a cold, hard, unemotional look at the evidence. Any case involving allegations of sexual crime brings with it, naturally, feelings of anxiety. It’s unpleasant, no-one want to think about it.
“You have heard details of the event that you may not discuss with a loved one never mind a stranger, but you have to talk about it round the table.”
