Anne Keothavong's husband is CLEARED of rape after tennis star broke down in court

Anne Keothavong's husband has been cleared of rape after the tennis star broke down in court and branded a US woman's sex attack claims 'a sick joke'.

Jurors took less than an hour to unanimously acquit Andrew Bretherton, 49, of two counts of rape alleged to have taken place more than 14 years ago in May 2008.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, claimed that he pinned her face down on the bed so she couldn’t breathe before forcing himself on her without her consent.

However, the Oxford-educated corporate lawyer, who is a semi-professional tennis player himself, was found not guilty after inconsistencies in his alleged victim’s evidence were pointed out during the two-week trial at Inner London Crown Court.

Mr Bretherton married the former British No 1 tennis star in 2015, and they have two children. 

Andrew Bretherton, 49,pictured outside Inner London Crown Court, was accused of raping the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, at his flat in Kensington, south west London, in May 2008

Bretherton, pictured with his wife former British tennis number one Anne Keothavong, right, denied the allegation

His wife broke down in tears in court as she described her husband as a 'fantastic person' who has 'never been remotely aggressive' when she gave character evidence on Monday.

Mr Bretherton, who had bought a packed bag with him, showed little visible emotion as the jury foreman said he was not guilty of each charge while his wife wept in the public gallery.

After the verdict, Judge Jane Rowley told jurors: 'The common sense view was clearly shown in this case and you came to the right verdicts.'

She told Mr Bretherton: 'As I am sure you understand, once a complaint is made the officers are only doing their job.

'You held your held high and answered all the questions.

'I wish you and all your family the very best for the future.'

The former tennis champion and her husband hugged and kissed outside the courtroom after the case finished.

Neither of them wished to make any comment on the verdict.

The alleged rape victim waited for 10-and-a-half years before naming Mr Bretherton to police.

He was first told about the rape allegations in January 2019, and was charged in November last year.

The woman told police that Mr Bretherton had played Welcome to the Jungle by Guns 'N’ Roses before attacking her.

But it later emerged that she had never mentioned that when she visited a rape crisis centre within a week of the alleged attack.

The court heard the woman only became interested in taking the case further after reading about a civil suit Harvey Weinstein was facing in Britain.

Lawyers for Mr Bretherton also claimed she had given conflicting accounts about the alleged rape and tried to prevent some of the evidence from being disclosed.

During cross-examination, his lawyer Sarah Forshaw KC told jurors that there were too many inconsistencies in the alleged victim's account for them to be sure that she was telling the truth.

She also said the alleged victim did not ask him to stop at all during the first alleged attack, although the alleged victim says her head was face down on the pillow and she couldn't breathe.

Ms Forshaw KC said 'common sense' should make jurors question why she did not immediately report it to police.

The court heard she told a rape crisis centre in 2008 that she had agreed to take her trousers off, but told police 10 years later that he had ripped them off.

Earlier in the trial, jurors were told the alleged victim became interested in taking the case further after reading about a civil suit Harvey Weinstein was facing in Britain, a claim she denied

It is also claimed she had changed her account from saying she had been slapped by him on the buttock to slapped on the thigh as she 'knew' the crisis centre reports would show the injury was on her thigh.

She reported the alleged attack in October 2008 but hesitated to press charges on three occasions before agreeing to be interviewed by police the following month.

The court was also told she had at one point said she felt 'bullied' into pressing charges by police officers, and had been 'interrogated' and 'made to feel like the perpetrator' by cops.

Earlier in the trial, jurors were told the alleged victim became interested in taking the case further after reading about a civil suit Harvey Weinstein was facing in Britain.

She denied this and said she had already spent three years researching how she could take the case forward.

The November 2017 piece on the Deadline Hollywood showbiz site said £300,000 could be paid out to a woman who had sued Weinstein.

Bretherton's alleged victim contacted Jill Greenfield, a partner at London law firm Fieldfisher, about how her own case and asked for advice.

They had discussions, but Ms Greenfield advised her it was unlikely a civil claim would be successful because there was not enough evidence, jurors were told.

The court was also told she initially refused to give police access to certain material such as her therapist's records.

Mrs Forshaw KC told jurors: 'You will want to consider whether she is a person who has the ability to dramatise a perfectly ordinary accident.

'She has grown to convince herself of her own truth and her own interpretation of what actually happened which is far less sensational, far less dramatic and thoroughly embarrassing.'

Brian O'Neill KC, prosecuting, said the alleged victim had given a 'broadly consistent' account of the alleged attack.

He told jurors: 'Quite why she waited as long as she did until she made a formal complaint to the police is something to which you will wish to give careful consideration.

'Is it or may it be because she is anxious to secure a criminal conviction before pursuing a civil claim for damages, or can you be sure that this is simply a case of her finally being emboldened to come forward?

'Her repeated refusal to give the police access to various material such as her therapist's records might be because she had something to hide as has been suggested to you by the defence or might be nothing more than a legitimate desire to protect her privacy and prevent strangers from looking through irrelevant personal material.

'This case is not easy and cases of this type never are. The issues are classic ones for a jury as they are one person's word against another with no supporting witnesses to support the account.

'That does not mean she is not telling the truth. That doesn't mean that you can't convict on her word and her word alone.

'If you are sure she has told you the truth it would be your duty to convict.'