THE JURY in the trial of nine men accused of child sex abuse in Oxford has been told it must decide whether alleged grooming victims had the “freedom and capacity” to agree to sex.

After 50 days of hearings, Judge Peter Rook yesterday began his summing up of the main issues in the Old Bailey trial.

Judge Rook told the jury that just because a complainant didn’t say “no”, it didn’t mean they were consenting to sex.

Nine men are on trial accused of targeting girls aged between 11 and 15 in Oxford, giving them drink and drugs, and sexually exploiting them.

Six girls claim they were abused by the men between 2004 and 2011. Charges include rape, serious sexual assault, and arranging child prostitution.

Judge Rook, summing up 16 weeks of evidence, told the jury of seven men and five women that the burden of proving the defendants guilty was with the prosecutors.

And he told them “emotion and prejudice” had no part to play in deliberations.

Six of the defendants face 24 rape charges and 15 of conspiracy to rape.

The judge told the jury if a complainant was “out of it” on drink or drugs at the time of an alleged rape then they would not have had the capacity to consent.

But he said it was “irrelevant” if the defendant was influenced by drink or drugs.

He told the jury that a child under 13 cannot legally agree to sex. He also said the jury should consider the age and maturity of the alleged victims when considering their ability to consent.

He said: “The fact that a complainant did not say “no” does not necessarily mean she is consenting.”

Judge Rook also told the Old Bailey jury they would have to decide how reliable and credible each witness was.

But he said inconsistencies in evidence were not necessarily signs a story was untrue.

He said: “It is not uncommon for witnesses to give inconsistent accounts when they have undergone a particularly traumatic episode or episodes.”

The judge spent the afternoon recapping evidence from the complainant known as Girl 1.

The witness claims she was raped and sold for sex between the ages of 13 and 15 by Kamar Jamil, and Akhtar and Anjum Dogar.

Now 21, she told the court in January how the men befriended her aged 12 and gave her gifts, alcohol and cannabis. She said they made her feel “special”.

But they started having sex with her and making her have sex with strangers, the jury heard. The witness said she felt she owed them.

Judge Rook also read Girl 1’s evidence from when she described the gang driving her to Shotover Woods in the middle of the night and threatening to cut her throat after she lied to avoid being raped.

She was then made to perform a sex act on seven men, the court heard.

The judge also said it did not necessarily matter that Girl 1 had not identified Anjum Dogar in a police procedure last year.

He said: “The ID procedure took place some years after the abuse that is alleged.

“She, in any event, refers to Jammy being involved and that’s how she knew him and we know that Anjum Dogar is not only the brother of Akhtar but also has the name Jammy.”

The defendants deny all 66 charges against them.

The judge is expected to continue his summing up of the case today and tomorrow, before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

The trial continues.