Former Celtic and Derry star Paddy McCourt found guilty of sexual assault

McCourt (39) of Wheatfield Court in Muff, County Donegal had contested one charge of sexual assault on a female where it was alleged someone had put their hand up her skirt in a nightclub.

After a two day hearing District Judge Ted Magill ruled that while there were 'discrepancies' in some of the witness accounts this happens.

He said you could have 12 witnesses to one incident and get 12 different accounts.

The judge said that the defence had claimed the police investigation had been 'flawed' and another man identified by the defence should have been arrested and tested for DNA.

He said that DNA was not infallible and that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

The judge said that the actions of the other man in the case 'were not consistent' with him having committed the offence.

So, he added, 'it follows it can't be anyone other than the defendant' who carried out the assault and so he found him guilty.

McCourt was released on bail to allow the preparation of a pre-sentence report and will be sentenced on July 7.

Earlier in the hearing, a defence barrister for McCourt said that he had never seen an Investigatory Powers Act used in a Magistrate's Court to access phone data in a case apart from terrorism cases.

On the second day of the contest, it was revealed that the prosecution had applied for and secured a warrant to access McCourt's phone messages on the night in question.

Eoghan Devlin for McCourt was cross-examining the Investigating Officer in the case about how the investigation was handled.

The officer agreed that McCourt had made himself available to police within 45 minutes of being contacted.

She accepted that she had told the injured party and her family that DNA was 'best evidence' and that McCourt had 'unhesitatingly' given samples for DNA testing.

In response to Mr Devlin the officer agreed that the forensic report on the woman's clothing showed the presence of a male DNA but excluded McCourt.

The officer was asked had police been pointed towards another man on the CCTV who could be a suspect in the case by both a defence solicitor during interview with the defendant and subsequently in e-mails and agreed they had.

The police officer was asked had they sought DNA from this person and she said they had not.

She agreed that this should have been done and said it had been discussed with her supervisor but no action taken.

Mr Devlin suggested that the police had ignored suggestions that the other man should be treated as a suspect until September when a senior prosecutor became involved and told police to speak to this man again.

The officer told the court that when they approached the man again he refused to co-operate.

Mr Devlin asked why was this man not arrested and his DNA taken and the officer said that they had tried to contact the man later but had no success.

Mr Devlin asked was it at the end of October before police took action almost two months after the man said he would not co-operate and found he had gone to Australia and was told that this was so.

At one stage the officer said that police were 'very busy' but Mr Devlin said that when police secured the phone warrant in the case 'some resources were thrown at it.'

Following the end of the prosecution case Mr Devlin had applied for the charges to be withdrawn as he maintained that both the injured party and his client had been failed by the police.

District Judge Ted Magill ruled that it was not a suitable case for a direction and the case proceeded with evidence from Paddy McCourt.