A lawyer said in court that the lady was “forward, she was bawdy” and “firtatious from the get-go” after he was accused of performing a sex act on her without her permission.
In September 2017, shortly after meeting the lady on the dating app Tinder, Robin Jacobs, 39, is accused of assaulting her.
On the night of the event, they went on their third date and met for pizza and wine at a restaurant in South Woodford. They then went back to Jacobs’ place and had consensual sex there.
After the lady yelled “get off” and barricaded herself in the restroom for what seemed like an eternity, Jacobs, who was admitted to the Bar in 2006, stated he “knew instantly there was an issue.”
Jacobs said today while testifying before the Old Bailey that he believed the lady was “probably up” for the sex act and that he had done the same thing without their consent with four other women.
The lady, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, claimed that despite her cries, he disregarded them and, as she lay face down on his bed, stated, “It’s not funny, I shouldn’t laugh.”
Are you going to report me? he said after she had left the restroom. He expressed his worries to the jury regarding the Bar Standards Board.
He denied that the claimed attack lasted between 20 and 30 seconds and refuted her assertion that she yelled “get off” three times.
I assumed she would be game for [the sex act], but if she wasn’t, there would be plenty of chance for her to let me know that she wasn’t, and then I would stop, he added.
Jurors were told about this specific day as well as how they also got together for tea and exchanged “sexually provocative” texts where they spoke about their ideal threesome.
One of the recurring motifs in her version, he added, is that she acted like an innocent spectator the whole time while I was the one who just initiated the interaction. The opposite is true and could not be more so.
“The person on the TV is not at all like the girl I was dating,” he said. It wasn’t me starting the conversation; she was entirely different; she was assertive, raunchy, and provocative right away.
Jacobs said in an interview that he was perplexed by what had occurred and was merely attempting to “fit in” with his behaviour when asked about the texts.
He said that “at least four sprang to mind” when questioned by prosecutor Fiona Ray how often he had performed the same sex act with other women without “any verbal warning” and that he had not previously encountered problems.
When questioned by authorities, the lady stated: “[There was] no dialogue, absolutely no warning, touching, foreplay, or warning.” Nothing was there.
She was assessed in a specialised sexual assault facility, where it was discovered that she had a recent wound. Jurors were also informed that following the event, Jacobs had twice reminded himself, “I shouldn’t laugh,” before chuckling.
He handed the lady a paracetamol and invited her to “come for a hug” after seeing that she was sad.
The defendant said in a string of texts to his buddy Stewart Wallis, which were read out in court, “My date has just f***ed off… what’s the world come to?”
I simply hope there’s no difficulty as a consequence, he subsequently texted. While she was here, I apologised many times. Jesus, all this hubbub.
Jacobs said in an interview that he was perplexed by what had occurred and was merely attempting to “fit in” with his behaviour when asked about the texts.
The lawyer indicated during his testimony yesterday that he really thought the lady had given her assent to what was happening.
She may have known what I was about to do and approved of it up to the point when she was injured.
The attorney fails to understand social cues because he has autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the court has been informed.
However, Ms. Ryan, the prosecutor, said in her closing remarks today that Jacobs’ ASD diagnosis “was not a substantial component in the matter under review.”
He was not misinterpret signals as a result of his autism, she said.
His concept of consent at the time was unaffected by his autism.
He claims to have had multiple sexual relations with whom he had not obtained their express permission.
Perhaps he anticipated hearing a different version of “no cheeky, not in there” on this particular occasion.
Perhaps he was taken aback by the woman’s firm defence of her right to bodily autonomy.
Perhaps he reasoned that seeming perplexed would make things easier.
“I didn’t anticipate Mr. Jacobs to say, with the benefit of the knowledge he now has, that [the woman] was genuinely consenting at the time, but it seems he is,” Ms. Ryan told the jury. “He indicated yesterday that [the woman] did know and that she was alright with it until it harmed her.”
You should not pretend to have never lived in the real world or to have no prior knowledge of the concerns discussed. Of course, you should make your decision based on the facts you have heard.
That doesn’t mean you should pass moral judgement on what you personally enjoy or don’t like.
Jacobs’ claimed assault was followed by laughing, which Ms Ryan addressed by saying: “People suffer from inappropriate laughter [but] similarly please don’t give it more relevance than it has.”
Yes, [the lady] did inform friends and the police about it because, as she said, she found it to be extremely strange and confusing.
She probably didn’t feel well about it, and Mr. Jacobs has expressed regret for the impression it left on her.
Please don’t think that [the lady] fabricated a false accusation because she was upset by the laughing. This case shouldn’t be based on it in its entirety.
If the lady was as “sexually adventurous” and “not a prude” as Jacobs claimed, as Mr. Ryan said, “she’s not likely to be traumatised by transient partial penetration which ceased as quickly as she stated.”
Ms. Ryan questioned: “They enjoyed wonderful communication about their needs and dislikes, so why not this?” in reference to the sexually explicit communications they had exchanged before to their first sexual experience.
The attorney representing Jacobs, Stephen Rose, told the court: “This is about a brief connection that began on Tinder in 2017 between two mature people who seemed to be seeking for love.
I have no doubt that some, if not all, of you have found it unpleasant to sit and listen to some portions of this trial in the formality of this kind of environment.
ASD was discovered to have substantial effects on Mr. Jacobs’ life and significant ramifications for this trial. Mr. Jacobs is a middle-aged attorney.
And he learns it after coming into touch with a rape accusation.
It is nothing short of terrible to learn that at his stage of life.
This is not about who you would choose to have a drink with or not have a drink with, or anything of that type, out of [the complainant] or Mr. Jacobs.
The complainant and Mr. Jacobs alone, Ms. Rose added, “can tell you the truth about consent or the reasonable belief in consent.”
Mr. Rose read character references from Jacobs’ friends and coworkers who expressed disbelief about the accusations against him while praising him as “a very sensitive and caring guy.”
Jacobs’ former Hardwicke Buildings coworker John McKendrick, QC, stated: “Robin has always appeared as a bright guy.”
He is well-read, intelligent, and has a wide variety of interests.
I’ve never seen him to convey his opinions with much vigour.
In contrast to many barristers, he is not domineering.
‘I am now in a relationship with Robin and have been for just over two years,’ commented Gizella Simpson-Hayes, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserves and nurse practitioner.
We first spoke in December 2019.
I can confidently claim that over those two years, he has never let me down.
I can honestly state that I have never once doubted this since I have always found his honesty and integrity to be a welcome difference from the usual.
He really is considerate and nice.
Since I first met him, he has never shown any physical violence, wrath, or hostility, and [he has] never behaved irrationally to a scenario.
He “seems to have an instinctive dread of offending anybody at all.”
Woodford resident Jacobs has refuted one rape allegation. The trial goes on.