But my name has been dragged through the mud

By Vanessa Allen
Last updated at 8:57 AM on 27th March 2009

A chef accused of raping a lawyer after a drunken one-night stand spoke of his relief last night after he was dramatically cleared by a jury of the sex attack in just 45 minutes. 

Peter Bacon, 26, was found not guilty of raping the woman, who claimed he had taken advantage of her while she was too drunk to consent to sex.

The student pub worker said he had endured a nightmare during the 13 months from her accusation to his acquittal. 

Freed in 45 minutes: Peter Bacon with friends Jodie Bradley (right) and Laura Dowling ( left) after he was acquitted  at Winchester Crown Court yesterday

In addition, he questioned why his alleged ‘victim’ received automatic lifelong anonymity, while he was named as an accused rapist.

In a statement read by his solicitor, he said: ‘This case seriously calls into question the lack of anonymity for people like Peter who have been wrongfully accused of rape, and who are ultimately acquitted.’

As he left the courthouse Mr Bacon was met by two female friends who both kissed him as a gesture of solidarity.

Mr Bacon smiled as Laura Dowling and Jodie Bradley, who gave evidence as character witnesses for him during the trial, gave him a peck on either cheek.

The woman’s claims that she could remember nothing of her alleged rape also raised questions about why the Crown Prosecution Service decided to continue with the case, at an estimated cost of £90,000 to the taxpayer.

A jury of seven women and four men took just 45 minutes to find Mr Bacon not guilty, after hearing three days of evidence.

They had heard his accuser, a 45-year-old woman, claim that she must have been raped because she was too drunk to have consented to sex.

The woman, a lawyer who described herself in court as a ‘recreational binge drinker’, said she found Mr Bacon lying in her bed one morning with no memory of what had happened.

Solidarity: Mr Bacon with Miss Bradley, who gave evidence during the trial

She immediately accused the university student of taking advantage of her, shouting that the law had been changed because of ‘f*****s like you’.

In 2007 the Appeal Court ruled that a woman who is drunk may not be capable of giving her consent to sex, even if she is still conscious.

But juries are still asked to make their own decisions about whether they believe a woman was sober enough to consent, and whether a man could ‘reasonably believe’ that she had consented.

Mr Bacon had insisted that he believed the woman had given him a ‘come- on’ and had flirted with him before the pair had sex.

He said she was a willing participant and added: ‘I was aiming to try to get a one-night stand legitimately and then have coffee and breakfast in the morning and go our separate ways.’

Speaking after the unanimous verdict was returned at Winchester Crown Court, Mr Bacon said: ‘It feels like an enormous weight has been lifted.

‘The issue has been resolved now and I can move on. It’s great, I can’t believe it. It’s awesome (to be free).’

His solicitor Nicola O’Connor read a statement on his behalf. She said: ‘There are no winners in this case. Peter has had this awful allegation hanging over his head for just over a year now.

‘It has been enormously upsetting and stressful to have an allegation of this nature made against him.

‘As soon as he was aware that the complainant was alleging rape, he voluntarily contacted the police and told them what happened.

‘He told the police as much as he could. He has maintained his innocence throughout.

‘Peter is enormously grateful to the jury for carefully considering the evidence in this case and returning a verdict of not guilty.’

Mr Bacon was accompanied by several female friends who had given evidence on his behalf, speaking about his honesty, respect for women and their belief in his trustworthiness.

He is a university undergraduate. He is hoping to resume the final year of his sociology degree at Canterbury University.

His legal team had asked the judge to throw out the case after the prosecution completed its evidence on Wednesday.

Judith Khan, defending, said there was ‘no case to answer’ and said there was no evidence that a rape had been committed.

Judge Patrick Hooton rejected her application, saying a jury would have to decide if they believed the woman was too drunk to consent to sex.

He said: ‘There is no evidence from any expert to say that at a certain reading (of alcohol in the blood) a person would have been incapable of making conscious decisions.

‘That is something that has to be decided through knowledge of human conduct and that varies from individual to individual.’

The question of how alcohol affects a woman’s ability to give her consent to sex is one that has dogged the criminal justice system.

In 2007, three Appeal Court judges quashed the conviction of 25-year-old software engineer Benjamin Bree, who was jailed for five years the previous December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.

The girl told the jury that she did not want to have sex, but Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent.

One of the judges said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent.

But he added: ‘Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.’

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman defended the decision to take the case to court.

She said: ‘The Crown Prosecution Service takes allegations of rape very seriously and after receiving a file relating to Peter Bacon from Kent Constabulary, two CPS rape specialists carefully reviewed the evidence.

‘They decided that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and therefore decided that Peter Bacon should be charged with rape.

‘The ability of the complainant to consent was clearly an issue in this case.
‘A submission by the defence that there was no case to answer was rejected by the judge, who allowed the case to be considered by the jury.’