A JURY is considering whether or not Paul John Evans, a pensioner accused of sexually abusing a boy and a girl in Cirencester in the 1960s and 70s, is guilty of the 21 charges he faces.

The 76-year-old, of Stepstairs Court, Watermoor, in Cirencester is alleged to have abused a girl aged five to eight between 1968 and 1977, and a boy of a similar age between 1971 and 1977.

Mr Evans has been charged with 12 counts of indecent assault of the girl, one count of gross indecency with her, five of indecently assaulting the boy and three of indecency with him.

His trial has been taking place at Bristol Crown Court this week, and the jury were sent out to consider their verdict this afternoon.

It is alleged that Mr Evans exposed and touched himself in front of the children, touched them and made them touch him, on multiple occasions.

The jury was told that Mr Evans has previous convictions of indecently assaulting three nine-year-old children on two separate occasions.

Mr Evans pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting a nine-year-old girl in November 1954 at the Cirencester juvenile court when he was 15.

Three years later, when he was 18, he pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting two nine-year-old girls in September 1958, at Cirencester Magistrates’ Court.

The defendant’s previous convictions were made known to the jury after prosecutor Robert Duval argued that the defence’s case may be painting a ‘false impression’ of Mr Evans’ propensity to be sexually attracted to children.

Prosecutor Mr Duval and defence lawyer Gareth James gave their closing submissions to the jury this morning.

With regards to the defence’s claims that the alleged victims had invented their stories of abuse, Mr Duval said: “Why they should invent and then maintain such a complex account is frankly difficult to fathom. Why they should choose this defendant (to lie about) is again difficult to fathom.

“Children often remain silent for years, particularly when offences of this nature are committed in a society which was less informed to understanding its existence. The abuser deliberately exploited the child’s vulnerability for his sexual gratification.

“The defence have not said why this defendant was targeted as the subject of their lies. It is a question you are entitled to ask yourselves.

“There is no explanation as to why they should be specific about where and when these assaults, why they should limit the assaults alleged, why the female should choose to describe her encouragement of Mr Evans.

“These must be hugely sophisticated lies if they are lies, but they are not.”

Speaking of Mr Evans’ previous convictions, he said: “The repeat of them suggests an enduring sexual interest in children of a certain age.

“The earlier indecent assault involved the defendant taking a nine-year-old girl to a disused shelter.

“It is beyond the realms of coincidence that the alleged victims account of the abuse has circumstances so similar to the 1954 offence”

During the trial, the jury heard from Mr Evans’ stepdaughter, who spoke in his defence and said she could not believe he was capable of abuse.

Defence lawyer Mr James told the jury: “Whatever happened, you cannot be sure if the alleged victims are telling the truth, the absolute truth, about what happened.

“And you cannot be sure that Mr Evans is not telling the truth when he says nothing happened.

“How many times does the female complainant use the words ‘probably’, ‘possibly’, ‘maybe’, ‘most likely’. It’s not ‘this happened’ but ‘this probably happened’, ‘this must’ve happened’, ‘this maybe happened’.

“’Maybe he would move my hand’. Are those the words of someone who is sure about what had happened?

“As for the male complainant, his story has changed over the years has it not?

“What about Mr Evans’ stepdaughter? You heard from her. If he was a paedophile, why does he just stop and finish?”

The jury of four women and eight men were told that only a unanimous decision would be accepted in this case.

This means that all 12 must agree that Mr Evans is either guilty or not guilty of each charge.

They were also instructed to return a not guilty verdict for two charges regarding the male complainant due to lack of evidence.

UPDATE: The jury are returning to Bristol Crown Court tomorrow (Friday, September 23) to continue considering their verdicts.