Warning: This article discusses rape and sexual assault.
The Wellington District Court heard closing arguments from both prosecution and defence on Thursday in the trial of a 25-year-old man charged with sexual assault.
Warning: This article discusses rape and sexual assault.
The man is accused of eight sex offences, including raping four women, between 2017 and 2020.
Crown prosecutor Rushika De Silva says the Crown case is that the complainants can and should be believed due to the consistency the women have shown in their evidence.
She said the jury should be focused on the truth of events rather than the complete accuracy of the complainants' memory.
“There’s no possibility that the complainants and the defendant are both telling the truth.
“Their accounts are so different that it is not possible that the complainants have simply misinterpreted events or recalled them incorrectly and in the Crown’s submission it is this stark contrast between the complainant and defendant’s version of events that is really important in this case.”
She said the eight-day trial has given the 12 jury members an insight into the lives of young people and their partying, but their nights out, alcohol and drug use are not what this case is about.
De Silva said the defendant’s story that any sex with the complainants was consensual is completely at odds with each of their testimonies.
She told the jury to be aware that just because a lawyer is putting a question to a witness about what allegedly occurred, it doesn’t mean it’s what happened.
De Silva said a witness confirming to the defence it was a possibility something could have occurred, wasn’t the same as accepting it did occur.
“Lawyers do not create the evidence simply by asking a question.”
De Silva said that memory is not perfectly accurate.
“People make mistakes so your question is to decide which evidence is credible and reliable and assess the charges on the basis of that.”
She said it's inevitable people will forget some aspects with how much time has passed since the events, or because of the influence of alcohol or drugs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying and their evidence is unreliable.
De Silva said some of the complainants not being able to remember certain details of the events of a night were “reasonable concessions” but that they were clear on the “essential elements” of what occurred and didn’t make fabrications.
“You don’t need to be sure of every detail, you only need to be sure that when you consider all the evidence, which you are satisfied is reliable, that [the defendant] committed the crimes with which he is charged.”
Referring to the defence’s case that the defendant is a victim of social media allegations, the Crown prosecutor said it’s important the jury separate the social media chat from the evidence of this case as it didn’t influence the women’s complaints.
She said the social media posts were not relevant to their allegations but were relevant to why they went to police when they did.
“The complainants said the knowledge that others were in the same boat meant that they were prepared to do something about it where previously they had all repressed it.”
One complainant mentioned she complained to police to stop the offending from happening to anyone else, De Silva said.
“There is no evidence before you that any of the complainants had discussed their individual allegations or evidence in the group chat.”
The Crown prosecutor also commented on the detailed recollections the defendant provided of the alleged sexual activity.
She said his evidence was inconsistent from many other witnesses, changed when he was under pressure and was moulded to make his story “look better.”
“There is no plausible reason for each of the complainants to lie.”
In closing, defence lawyer Val Nisbet told the jury the defendant has been targeted by the complainants for “some reason.”
He said while the defendant took advantage of the intrigue the women showed towards him, the sex was consensual.
Nisbet again talked about how the people involved in the case experimented with alcohol, drugs and sex and made their own choices, even if they regretted them later.
“It’s not bad, criminal behaviour, it’s just young people enjoying them,” he said.
He also refuted the Crown labelling at least one of the complainants as naive.
“I’d say they’re a pretty worldly bunch… they know what’s going on, they know what’s happening.”
Nisbet said there was a “real conflict” between the evidence of the defendant and the complainants.
He talked about the “inroads” the defence had made during cross-examinations of the women, saying this has weakened the Crown’s case.
This largely covered differences in recollections between complainants and other witnesses, actions taken or not taken during the alleged events by complainants and their memory of the nights in question.
“Those concessions mean he’s probably or possibly right about what occurred,” he said.
He also brought up the communication that some women had with the defendant before and after the alleged assaults, and how two women claimed to have consensual sex with him on later occasions.
Nisbet referred to one complainant answering sexual behaviour like foreplay was a possibility and how the Crown had dismissed this.
“But it does, doesn’t it, it supports the defence’s contention that people’s memories lapse…. people can forget they’ve consented it seems and was that the case here?”
Nisbet referred to the Crown’s closing arguments, saying mentioning “the ring of truth” multiple times in reference to the complainants’ evidence doesn’t make it the truth.
“None of us in the court know the truth and we’re expecting 12 of you with your collective common sense to see if you can locate the truth.”
The complainants “could not help but be influenced” by the allegations posted on social media about the accused and other men, he said.
“It was pretty, pretty awful and miserable.”
He mentioned how the defendant was criticised by the Crown for remembering sexual activity in detail and said how members of the jury may act the same if they were facing allegations.
“It would certainly focus the mind wouldn’t it and you would do your utmost to recall what happened and that’s what he’s doing, it’s as simple as that.”
“The Crown aren’t experts on memory or people’s ability to remember things so make nothing of that criticism.”
He also told the jury claims of the defendant engaging in “rough sex” were a distraction.
“You should be concentrating on whether there was consent from the parties or at least, at very least a reasonable belief in consent.”
He said the complainants' evidence is “not good enough” to find the defendant guilty.
“I would ask you members of the jury to take it very seriously and find the defendant not guilty on all charges.”
SHARE ME