Former singer associated with Spandau Ballet Ross Davidson has been found guilty of rape, attempted rape and sexual assault following a jury trial in London. The 37-year-old, who performed under the stage name Ross Wild, was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court over offences involving two women in incidents dating back to March 2015 and December 2019. Jurors returned unanimous guilty verdicts after more than 11 hours of deliberation. Davidson denied the allegations, claiming all sexual activity was consensual, and had earlier pleaded guilty to a voyeurism charge connected to the Thailand case. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled, reports The WP Times via BBC.
Scope of the case and charges considered by the court
The trial examined conduct spanning more than four years and involving two complainants in different countries. Prosecutors presented the case as one centred on sexual activity with women who were asleep and therefore unable to give lawful consent.
The charges related to a rape allegation in London in March 2015 and separate allegations of attempted rape and sexual assault in Thailand in December 2019. In addition, the court considered a voyeurism offence after Davidson admitted secretly filming one of the women while she slept in a hotel room.
Both complainants told the jury they had met Davidson via Tinder, and that they were unaware of any sexual activity taking place at the time it occurred. The prosecution argued that the similarity of circumstances was relevant to assessing intent and credibility.
Evidence and testimony presented during the trial
The prosecution relied on witness testimony, digital forensic evidence recovered from a mobile phone, and statements made by Davidson during police interviews and in court.
The London complainant told jurors she woke to find Davidson assaulting her while she slept in his bed. She said she felt unable to react and described a prior conversation in which Davidson had spoken about an interest in sex involving someone who was “helpless” or “not moving”. Prosecutors argued this context supported her account.
In the Thailand case, detectives said they identified the complainant after discovering a video on Davidson’s phone showing her partially naked and unresponsive in a hotel room. The woman told the court she had no knowledge the footage existed until she was contacted by investigators. Davidson admitted recording the video for sexual gratification but denied that any further sexual activity was non-consensual.
How the jury assessed consent under English law
The judge directed jurors on the statutory definition of consent under the Sexual Offences Act, emphasising that consent requires both freedom and capacity.
Jurors were instructed to consider:
- whether the complainants were asleep or unconscious at the relevant times
- whether a sleeping person is capable of giving consent
- whether the defendant could reasonably believe consent existed
After assessing the testimony and digital evidence, the jury concluded that the complainants were asleep and therefore legally incapable of consenting, rejecting the defence argument that prior discussions amounted to consent.
Legal framework applied by the court
| Legal principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Capacity to consent | A person who is asleep or unconscious cannot consent |
| Reasonable belief | Belief in consent must be objectively reasonable |
| Burden of proof | Prosecution must prove lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt |
| Jury role | Assess credibility, evidence and judicial directions |
The verdicts reflect the jury’s acceptance of the prosecution’s interpretation of both the facts and the law.
Defence position and jury findings
Davidson maintained throughout the trial that he was “sex positive” and believed consent had been established through prior communication. Under cross-examination, he denied that the complainants’ state of sleep negated consent.
The prosecution argued that any belief in consent was unreasonable given the complainants’ unconsciousness and the absence of any active participation. The jury’s unanimous verdicts indicate it accepted that argument across all contested charges.
Background and public profile
Davidson, originally from Aberdeen and later living in Finchley, north London, appeared with Spandau Ballet in 2018 and performed in the Queen-themed West End musical We Will Rock You. Prosecutors said his public profile was relevant only insofar as it explained how he met the complainants through online dating.
The court was told that celebrity status does not alter legal standards around consent, a point reinforced in the judge’s directions to the jury.
What the convictions mean in practice
Davidson now stands convicted of serious sexual offences, including rape, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment under English law. Sentencing will take place at a later hearing, where the judge will consider harm, culpability and any aggravating or mitigating factors. He will also be subject to notification requirements under the sex offenders register.
For the wider public, the case highlights how courts assess consent in situations involving unconsciousness and how digital evidence recovered from personal devices can play a decisive role in criminal proceedings, even when incidents occur across international borders.
Read about the life of Westminster and Pimlico district, London and the world. 24/7 news with fresh and useful updates on culture, business, technology and city life: Ne‑Yo and Akon London Tour 2026: Ticket Prices, Availability & How to Secure Your Spot