A convicted rapist has been cleared of further serious sexual offences.

Bruno Rae, aged 52, formerly of Warrington and who later lived on Anglesey, is currently serving a 16 year prison sentence after he was convicted of raping a woman.

A jury at Mold Crown Court cleared him of rape, attempted rape and four other sexual offences against a young man.

Judge Niclas Parry said after the verdict that he would now simply continue to serve the current prison sentence.

The jury of seven men and five women were told that the defendant had been convicted of rape and in March 2013 he received a 16 year prison sentence at Chester Crown Court.

While he was in custody, the complainant in the current proceedings came forward in 2015 and made fresh allegations against him.

It was alleged that the defendant had sexually assaulted the complainant and had raped him and had tried to do so.

He felt frightened and intimidated, he said.

Prosecuting barrister Matthew Curtis alleged that when the defendant heard about the new allegations he tried to commit suicide.

He had, he alleged, been “found out” and tried to hang himself and take an overdose.

Rae denied any sexual behaviour towards the young man, which was alleged to have taken place between 2002 and 2008.

He said that he had no sexual interest in the complainant whatsoever.

The defendant told the jury that he had been wrongly convicted originally and had appealed against the conviction.

He said that the appeal had gone against him and that was why he had tried to harm himself.

Defending barrister Maria Massellis told the jury that they may take the view that there was no smoke without fire and that “lightening doesn’t strike twice.”

But they should put such thoughts completely out of their heads and remember that as a jury they were his protector against a wrongful conviction.

She asked the jury to consider if the complainant had put forward similar allegations to what he had heard about the earlier case involving the female complainant.

Miss Massellis also asked the jury to consider if the complaint had been motivated by compensation, which had been paid to the first complainant.