Jury takes just ONE hour to clear 24-stone student of forcing a man to have sex with her – after she told them she was ‘too lazy’

Jury takes just ONE hour to clear 24-stone student of forcing a man to have sex with her – after she told them she was ‘too lazy’

Posted For: Willie Wonka


A jury took just one hour to clear a 24-stone student of forcing a man to have sex with her, after she told them that she was ‘too lazy’ to be on top for 15 minutes and by the time that she returned to bed after checking she hadn’t burned her onion rings, he was asleep.

Imogen Brooke, 31, burst into tears in the dock and thanked jurors after they took just one hour to find her not guilty.

Miss Brooke – who weighed 24 stone at the time – had been accused of pinning her alleged victim down, having sex with him against his will and giving him a lovebite.

But she told a jury she couldn’t have done the two things at once as ‘I can’t multitask’.

She also claimed she wouldn’t have been able to tug him over onto his back in bed as he had said, because ‘I’m not Superwoman’.

Today, on her 31st birthday, Miss Brooke was found not guilty of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent following a four day trial.

She had denied the alleged attack which the man — who cannot be named for legal reasons — said occurred at her flat in Southampton, Hampshire.

She told Southampton Crown Court that she is conscious of her weight, meaning that she wouldn’t have engaged in that sexual position.

She said: ‘No, I’m not comfortable with my body, because I’m bigger than most people.

‘I’m a big girl and I’m not confident of my weight, or any part of my body.’

The jury heard that Miss Brooke going on top during sex would be logistically challenging, as her size has an impact.

She continued: ‘I weigh 22st now but at the time I weighed 24st.

‘For me to be on top, I have to get on, balance to the side and lift up my belly and put in the penis – but I would [normally] ask them to.

‘But I can’t, I don’t like my body.’

Miss Brooke told the court that on the night in question, the two – who met online – had returned back to her flat.

She said: ‘I let Lexi my dog out, put some onion rings on and put the TV on because that’s what I usually do – and because I like food, especially when I’ve drunk.

‘We sat on the bed and we were kissing and that’s when the love-bite happened.’

She also told the court that she could not have given her alleged victim a love-bite while they were having sex because 'I can't multi-task'

Miss Brooke said that after kissing she went to check on the food during which time her alleged victim fell asleep.

Miss Brooke continued: ‘After kissing, I went and sorted the onion rings out – I would’ve checked if there were cooked or needed a bit longer and put mayonnaise on the plate.’

‘I ate them all to myself because he was asleep.’

Miss Brooke told the court that the next day she had messaged the man telling him he was ‘soundo’ — fast asleep — when she returned from the kitchen and had had to eat the onion rings alone.

Ms Audrey Archer, defending, asked whether she had tugged at the man’s arm to get him to lie on his back in the lead up to the alleged assault.

She replied: ‘No — I’m not Superwoman.’

When asked if it was true she had been on top for the alleged period of 15 minutes, Miss Brooke said: ‘No, I wouldn’t.

‘No, 15 minutes on top, I wouldn’t — I’m very lazy. I had no sex on top for any duration.’

Of the lovebite she told the court she couldn’t have done that, ‘because I can’t multitask’.

Addressing the jury, Ms Archer said: ‘If a man is going to to accuse a woman of forcing him to have sex, is he going to suggest [a position] whereby he was behind her?

‘Is he going to suggest one where he is on top of her? That isn’t going to add up or make sense with an allegation of forced sex.

‘The only position a man could suggest a woman was in if he was going to suggest he has been forced to have sex with her is one whereby she would have had to be on top of him.’

Judge Brian Forster KC said to the jury: ‘I promised you an interesting trial — I hope it has been just that.’

The court had previously heard that Miss Brooke was feeling ‘horny’ when she would not take no for an answer and got on top of her helpless victim.

The ‘very drunk’ student allegedly started ‘riding’ the man whose protests were going ‘in one ear and out the other’, even telling him ‘you may be saying no but your d*** is saying yes’.

Yesterday, jurors heard that Miss Brooke left him with a love-bite so bad that it looked like she had ‘strangled’ him.

The court heard that she took a photo of the bruise the morning after the alleged incident took place and sent it to him, giving him ‘flashbacks of a fairly horrific incident’ at her flat in Southampton, Hampshire.

Her alleged victim gave evidence remotely by video link yesterday and told the hearing he got flashbacks of the night during which Miss Brooke got on top of him in bed before forcing him to have sex against his will.

He said: ‘I remember the entire night. I remember it because I can’t get it out of my head.’

The court heard she had taken a photo of him when he finally got to sleep and sent it to him on Facebook Messenger the next day.

The man, who denied being given the love-bite with consent, said: ‘I found it difficult to sleep that morning. It took quite a while.

‘I stared at the wall most of the night after she forced me to have sex.’

He added: ‘I found a photo of me – of me asleep and a bruise on my neck. The bruise was from [Miss Brooke].

‘The mark to my neck came during the incident that took place in those early hours.

‘She was biting my neck. It took place while she was on top of me, when she had me pinned on my back, she was biting my neck at the same time.’

The court heard the complainant had not mentioned the love-bite in his original police complaint.

When questioned, he told jurors: ‘I remember everything apart from the biting – I just cover everything up in my head and keep it in.

‘I remember everything on that night and going to sleep and waking up.’

Jurors have been told this week how it was a ‘misconception’ that the victims of sexual offences are always female.

Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent differs to a charge of rape, for which the legal definition is when a person intentionally penetrates another’s vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person’s consent.


%d bloggers like this: