The jury in the trial of a sales representative charged with buggering an accounts clerk in a hotel room has been told by another sales representative the accused was "conked out" in another woman's room at the time of the alleged offence.
He told the jury in the Central Criminal Court he learned of the buggery allegation some weeks later on the day the complainant was dismissed from her job.
He agreed with Mr Hugh Hartnett SC (with Ms Una McGurk), prosecuting, that the defendant asked him to say he had spent the night in his room but he advised him to tell the truth and say where he actually was. He also agreed with Mr Michael McDowell SC (with Mr Raymond Comyn), defending, that the defendant was embarrassed to say he had actually "conked out" in the other woman's room.
Both he and the defendant had been in the complainant's room for about 20 minutes before the defendant went to their other colleague's room. Witness did not enter it, however, and returned to his own. The defendant returned to his room between 8.15 and 8.30 a.m. and they went to breakfast.
The witness told Mr McDowell he would class the defendant as "a very good personal friend. I wouldn't have him as a very good friend if I couldn't trust him."
It was the third day of the trial before Mr Justice Budd of a 38-year-old married sales representative who denies buggering the woman and sexually assaulting her in the Killiney Court Hotel, Dublin on April 17th, 1997.
The offences are alleged to have occurred following a party held by the company to celebrate the opening of a new showroom. Earlier, the alleged victim denied a claim during cross-examination that the reason she was dismissed on May 1st, 1996, was because of difficulties with her work and personality clashes with staff members.
She also denied she was wearing panties when she answered her door to another woman staff member. She said she could not understand how this person would say she was because she was wearing a long shirt owned by her father.
The woman told Mr McDowell her assailant ran instantly from out of the room without speaking when she awoke. The alleged victim's former employer told Mr Hartnett that he first became aware of the complaints when he was contacted by the victim's mother.
She was very graphic in her description of what happened but was reluctant to reveal which employee the allegations related to. Eventually she told him after being "pressed very hard" by him.
He contacted the alleged assailant and asked him to return to the office. When he was told of the allegations, the man replied: "No, no, no, no, no, I don't believe you're saying this about me."
Witness agreed with Mr Comyn that he met the defendant on the morning after the office party. The man told him that he had slept in the hotel room of a male employee of the company.
Witness said he had fired the alleged victim because of incompetence and because she had been cheeky to the managing director. He had heard nothing about the sex assault claims until the day she was dismissed.
The hearing continues today.