OWEN Oyston was last night (May 22) sentenced to a total of six years in jail after being found guilty of raping a young model and indecently assaulting her.

The judge, Mr Justice McCullough, told the 62-year-old Blackpool Football Club chairman: "She was young and vulnerable.

"I don't believe she led you on in any way. It is impossible to know to what extent she has been traumatised by her experiences on that night."

Oyston stood impassive in the dock at Liverpoool Crown Court as sentenced was passed. His wife Vicki smiled at him as he was taken down.

A few minutes earlier, after more than seven hours of deliberations, the jury had found Oyston not guilty of the rape of another young model, Girl A.

The judge said of Oyston's attitude towards Girl B: "You have consistently placed your interests above hers and shown no remorse."

He had denied raping Girl A in 1989 and Girl B in 1991 at his home, Claughton Hall, near Lancaster. The indecent assault took place in the back of a sports car as they were being driven to the castle.

Mr McCullough said: "You were 58: Miss B was 16. You were rich and powerful with a strong personality."

He said Oyston had in many ways been generous to the community - but that was of minor relevance. "You thought you had got away with it."

Oyston was sentenced to six years for the rape and three years for the indecent assault, both sentences to run concurrently.

Mrs Oyston spent five minutes with her husband in the cells, then left the court flanked by her family. Son Adam had a comforting arm around her, but she made no comment to the press.

A few minutes later they were followed by Gill Bridge, managing director of Blackpool Football Club, and family friend Louise Ellman, leader of Lancashire County Council.

Mr Michael Burne, solicitor for Oyston, said: "We will be looking carefully at grounds for an appeal."

Earlier, the court had heard Mr Justice McCullough, in his summing-up, tell the jury that lies had undoubtedly been told from the witness box during the 16-day trial. But he reminded them that it was not a court of morals.

"In each case the evidence of the person making the allegations and the defendant differs starkly," said the judge.

"Can it be explained by mistaken recollection or by imagination or is it that you have been told lies, indeed lie after lie after lie, in the form of deliberate perjury designed to mislead you into delivering a false verdict?"

He said the jury must use its common sense, knowledge of human nature and experience of life. It was not for him to suggest which witness or witnesses had lied but he added: "Lies, you may think, have undoubtedly been told."

The judge said there were a number of similarities between the rape accounts given by the two models and asked if it was possible that they had put their heads together or that a third party had put them up to making false allegations against him.

"Might the similarities simply be explained by coincidence, or is the only realistic explanation that the defendant did behave in the circumstances and in the way they have described?"

The judge warned the jury to try the case without regard to their feelings.

"This is not a court of morals," he said. "You must not let your feelings cloud your judgment."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.