Ex-NRL star Teui ‘TC' Robati on trial for alleged rape in Fortitude Valley
WARNING: Graphic details
A Brisbane jury was told a woman began to 'gag' and felt like she was going to vomit as a former NRL player allegedly forced her to perform oral sex in a hotel toilet.
Former Brisbane Broncos player Teui 'TC' Robati has pleaded not guilty to raping a woman twice during an alleged encounter in Fortitude Valley in late 2022.
Crown prosecutor Isabelle MacNicol told the jury on Monday that the woman had met Mr Robati, along with at least one other Broncos player, earlier that evening at The Prince Consort Hotel in Fortitude Valley on December 11, 2022.
The court was told the woman had been out that evening drinking with friends before she encountered Mr Robati at the hotel.
Former Brisbane Broncos player Teui 'TC' Robati allegedly forced a woman to perform oral sex in a disabled toilet at a Fortitude Valley hotel. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard
She alleged Mr Robati invited the woman upstairs to an event, where he led her into a disabled toilet where she believed he was going to offer her a 'line of cocaine'.
'The door closed and almost immediately he put his arms around her neck and started kissing her,' Ms MacNicol said.
Inside the toilet, Mr Robati allegedly pulled his pants down and told the woman to 'suck it' despite her saying she did not want to have sex, the court was told.
'She was scared, she started pacing. She covered her eyes, as she didn't want to look at the defendant's penis,' Ms MacNicol said.
'She said 'I don't want to do this, I don't know why I'm here'.'
The woman felt 'pressured and compelled' and then performed oral sex on Mr Robati without her consent, the prosecutor told the court.
'The defendant didn't take no for an answer,' she said.
Mr Robati is standing trial on two counts of rape. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard
The court was told she momentarily stopped before he forced her head down again.
'After about 15 seconds, she started to gag feeling like she was going to vomit,' Ms MacNicol said.
She told the court the woman then said she needed to go to the toilet before getting dressed and leaving.
Mr Robati's defence barrister told the court the case would hinge on two key arguments: first, that the sexual acts were entirely consensual and initiated willingly by both parties; and second, that even if the jury found the woman did not consent, Mr Robati held an honest and reasonable belief that she had, a belief which, even if ultimately mistaken, would form a crucial part of the defence's case.
The jury was shown a prerecorded video of the complainant's evidence and her cross-examination, which was conducted in a closed session.
Mr Robati was stood down by the Brisbane Broncos in February 2023, just weeks before the start of the NRL season, after the allegations became public. He has not played in the NRL since.
The trial is expected to run for three days.
Originally published as Ex-NRL star Teui Robati accused of rape in pub's disabled toilet
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
5 hours ago
- Perth Now
Judgment day for Brittany Higgins
A judgment in the long running defamation suit launched by former senator Linda Reynolds against her former junior staffer Brittany Higgins will be handed down next week. Justice Paul Tottle will deliver his verdict in the defamation case against Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz in the WA Supreme Court next Wednesday. Ms Reynolds sued the pair over a series of social media posts they made in 2022 and 2023, claiming they damaged her reputation. Ms Higgins relied on the truth defence claiming the social media posts were substantially true during the defamation proceedings. A verdict in former senator Linda Reynolds' defamation case against Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz will be handed down in the WA Supreme Court on August 27. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia Former senator Linda Reynolds brought the defamation proceedings after social media posts made by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia The posts were critical of Ms Reynolds' handling of Ms Higgins' allegation she was raped in the senator's office at Parliament House in 2019 by her then-colleague Bruce Lehrmann. He was charged with rape and faced trial in 2022, but the trial was aborted due to juror misconduct. The charge was dropped and Mr Lehrmann continues to maintain his innocence. Mr Lehrmann lost a subsequent civil defamation case in April last year when the Federal Court determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins at Parliament House. He is appealing the decision. Private text messages and emails between federal ministers, senators, staffers, press gallery journalists and lawyers were laid bare during the five-week blockbuster trial last year. Ms Higgins' defence team called for the action to be dismissed entirely at the end of the high-stakes legal battle. Brittany Higgins and David Sharaz sold the French chateau they called home to pay for legal fees. Credit: Supplied Ms Reynolds, who has retired from politics, mortgaged her home in a bid to clear her name. Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz sold their French home to pay for legal fees, as she maintained her version of events about what happened to her at Parliament House. It was revealed Ms Reynolds was seeking more than half a million dollars in damages. Her lawyer Martin Bennett asked the court to 'nail the lies' Ms Higgins allegedly perpetuated after making her rape allegation public in 2021. The court was told Ms Higgins 'grossly defamed' her former boss in social media posts shared years later. Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young said it was a series of events in 2021 that led to the then-Senator Reynolds' distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later. Ms Young argued Ms Reynolds' decline was caused by backlash from her referring to Ms Higgins as a 'lying cow', a senate grilling over the allegations, her hospitalisation, losing the defence ministry and missing out on a shadow ministry under Peter Dutton. Ms Higgins' defence lawyer Rachael Young argued it was a series of events in 2021 that led to Ms Reynolds distress and reputational damage, not social media posts created by her client two years later. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia She said the former senator tried to besmirch the people she blamed for her political demise, namely Ms Higgins, who continued to face the heaviest burden in all this. Two dozen witnesses were called to give evidence including former prime minister Scott Morrison. A who's who of the nation's parliament, media and legal circles were dragged into the proceedings as diary entries, minutes and communications between senators, staffers, journalists, police officers and lawyers were exposed in court. The trial centred around what happened in the aftermath of Ms Higgins speaking out about her alleged rape in a article and The Project interview that were published on February 15, 2021, two years after the alleged incident. Ms Reynolds' lawyer Martin Bennett argued in court statements that Ms Higgins made in those media interviews and in her personal injury claim were wrong and that she had lied. Former senator Linda Reynolds lawyer Martin Bennett argued every fairytale needs a villain. NewsWire / Sharon Smith Credit: News Corp Australia He said his client had been cast as a villain in Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz's fictional story that alleged Ms Reynolds had tried to cover-up a rape. 'Every fairytale needs a villain, and in 2020 or 2021, Ms Higgins and her then-partner and now-husband, Mr Sharaz, cast Ms Reynolds in that role for their fictional story of a cover-up of the rape,' Mr Bennett told the WA Supreme Court. 'The fact she had been raped was traumatic and terrible but it needed something more to attract the attention, to attract media interest, to attract the promotion of Ms Higgins, so she made it a political sex scandal.' Ms Young argued the matter was not, and never had been, a 'fairytale' for her client saying the comments were misplaced, harassing and retraumitising. Ms Young told the court Ms Reynolds had picked the 'wrong target' for the hurt and distress and that her reputation was already 'baked in' when her client posted to social media in the years that followed.
The Advertiser
7 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Lehrmann called 'national joke' on return to lion's den
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028 Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating. The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities. In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid. Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia". Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said. "He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court. She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten. The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said. She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept. Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent". Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs. "The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said. He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal. Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said. "That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said. He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent. Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person. "A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said. "This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community." Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said. Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent. Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him. Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him. The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault. The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
Music teacher cleared of sex abuse
Music teacher Janelle Fletcher has been found not guilty of sexually abusing two teen girls. Judge Joanne Fuller delivered her verdict after nearly a month of deliberation following the end of the closely watched trial, held at the South Australian District Court across July. Ms Fletcher, 40, pleaded not guilty to allegations she groomed and sexually abused an underage girl some years ago. She also pleaded not guilty to the charge of communicating with a second teen girl to make her amenable to sexual activity. The prosecution, led by Chris Allen, allege Ms Fletcher abused the girl in various locations and also that she communicated with her and another teenage girl to make them amenable to sexual activity. But on Wednesday, Judge Fuller rejected those claims. Final arguments in the judge-only trial circled around a series of emotionally charged emails in which Ms Fletcher told the alleged victim 'my feelings for you are not lust but love' and 'right now, we can't be open'. Alongside oral evidence from the alleged victims, the prosecution presented a series of texts and emails that it argued revealed the 'true nature' of the relationship between them. In one email, Ms Fletcher told the girl: 'I want something serious not something short term.' In others, she said 'my feelings for you are not lust but love' and 'right now, we can't be open. Right now we will have to continue as we are in secret …' Ms Fletcher argued the emails showed non-sexual 'love' for the girl. Janelle Fletcher denied the allegations and contested them at trial in July. NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia Andrew Culshaw, appearing for Ms Fletcher, acknowledged under questioning from Judge Fuller that the emails appeared 'terrible' on a first or literal reading in that they seemed to suggest the pair had been in a sexual relationship. But he argued a deeper reading of the emails fit with Ms Fletcher's testimony. She claimed last week that they were written to keep the girl happy and guide her away to a more age-appropriate relationship. 'These emails are consistent with a relatively young teacher, in her early 30s, who had got herself in too deep … and so was trying to deal with the situation and extricate herself from it,' Mr Culshaw said. The alleged grooming and abuse of the girl then went on for months at various locations, the prosecution said, including the home of Ms Fletcher and in Ms Fletcher's car. Some of the alleged offending happened when the two girls and Ms Fletcher were alone together in a room, the prosecution claimed, with the teacher allegedly performing a lap dance on a chair. She then allegedly 'dared' the two girls to kiss each other and asked if they would 'date' each other. That same night, Mr Allen said, Ms Fletcher then spent time alone with one of the girls and touched her genital area. Alongside the emails, the prosecution presented photographs to support its case, including a photo of Ms Fletcher and the girl kissing at a cinema photo booth. Mr Allen said the 'objective evidence' of the photo booth kiss showed an 'unlawful sexual act'. Ms Fletcher holds a PhD in music education. Supplied Credit: Supplied In her testimony, Ms Fletcher said the photo booth kiss was a 'pretend kiss' she did not want or mean to happen. 'It was meant to be a pretend kiss like we had done previously where our lips don't actually touch, and in that particular photo we got close and she did sort of pull me in and the photo went off, yeah,' Ms Fletcher said. Ms Fletcher's defence team claimed the photo was taken before the kiss and should not be seen as approval of the act, with the correct sequence of photos running one, two, four and then three. Mr Culshaw also argued the photo did not show child sexual abuse because the girl had turned 17 at the time of the photo, and so she was therefore not a child when the kiss happened. Further, Ms Fletcher was also no longer in a position of authority at the time of the kiss, the defence said. 'What Your Honour has, in my submission, is evidence of a kiss at a time when it was legal,' Mr Culshaw said. Ms Fletcher holds a PhD in music education. She told the court that she was heterosexual and believed in the Catholic faith. She was still legally married to a man, though the pair had separated, she told the court.
