A man who was charged with masturbating in his car as a schoolgirl walked past the window has told the district court that he was actually sanding the handle of a paint roller that was between his legs.
Prosecuting Inspector Tony O’Sullivan told Mallow District Court that Csaba Szentesi, 52, of Evergreen Buildings, Cork was charged with a single count of masturbating in public under Section 45-2-C of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.
…
Defence counsel John Colthurst BL acting for solicitor Killian McCarthy said that it was not the defence’s case that the girl was lying but that she was simply mistaken.
In a statement Mr Szentesi told the court that he was a painter by trade and was married with two children.
He said that he had arrived in Midleton that morning on his way to a job and stopped for something to eat and a cigarette.
Mr Szentesi said that he had a new paint roller that had a “glossy handle” and he was sanding it down because it was too slippery.
He told the court that it was between his legs and that anyone looking in the window might think it was a penis.
He said: “I am convinced what the young girl saw was the paint roller. Even an adult could confuse the situation.”
…
Judge Colm Roberts commended the girl for how she conducted herself in court where she appeared by video link and in the video interview.
He said: “If this was decided on the balance of probabilities I would have no problem convicting this man but because of the seriousness of the charge it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On that basis I cannot convict because the evidence does not reach the required threshold.”
The judge said he found the defendant’s explanation novel and told Mr Colthurst: “If your client is cleaning handles again make sure he doesn’t do it near schoolchildren.”
The case was dismissed.
“If your client is cleaning handles again make sure he doesn’t do it near schoolchildren”
😂
I’m astounded that defence worked (I’d have said “pull the other one”). Feels like one that should go to appeal.
I can’t really find any fault in the judge’s reason personally, especially since I assume this would lead to him being a registered sex offender. It might just be a genius idea from the defence lawyer, but it’s not inconceivable - especially if he is indeed a painter.
I don’t think defence lawyers can willfully lie or ask their clients to lie.
willfully
Don’t have to. They only have to create reasonable doubt.
Unless the accused is somehow proven to or admitted to an act. All they have to do is present another interpretation of what the witness may have assumed was something else.
The whole point is eyewitness testimony is always the weakest form of evidence. Unless this guy was built like a horse. Or the witness was close enough to join in. There is no way to argue the event he is accused of vs the event he claimed.
So all the lawyer has to do is recommend not pleading guilty and suggest other things the witness may have seen.
Not sure about cork law. But England’s laws make it even easier. As the act alone in public is not a crime in itself. You have to prove the participants intended or reasonably expected to offend.
This means not only doubt about the act. But any effort to hide the act would be defence. So it even adds a reason why the accused may have hidden his cleaning the paint roller. Because he worried someone may misinterpret.
Miss interpretation of the law may not provide much defence against a crime. But it can certainly be used to argue the reasonableness of looking suspicious when partaking in an innocent action.
Sanding the roller. Excellent.
This reminds me of the backup landing gear extension pump in the King Air 200 and 350. It takes like 50 to 75 strokes to fully extend the landing gear.
Sometimes the evidence isn’t as clear as here.
