A friend of the Mama Hooch drink spike rapists has been found not guilty of sexually violating a woman, who claimed she experienced blackouts after drinking at the Christchurch bar.
In a second trial related to the now-infamous drugging case, the woman had described feeling like a "robot" after consuming drinks at Mama Hooch on August 5, 2018.
Giving evidence in the Christchurch District Court yesterday, the woman claimed a man had led her to a car and drove her to a private house.
She said she was unable to remember anything else from the night, other than a snapshot of being sexually violated by a man on a couch.
Judge Paul Mabey KC has found the man she accused – a 29-year-old with interim name suppression – not guilty of sexual violation, following a two-day trial in the Christchurch District Court.
It follows an earlier trial of three of the man’s friends, where two were convicted of rape. They were found guilty of drugging 17 women between them, and sexually assaulting 12 of those women.
At that trial, which finished two weeks ago, the Crown proved the pair had either slipped substances into drinks, or provided powder to women to consume, at either Mama Hooch bar or a nearby restaurant between 2015 and 2018.
A third man was found not guilty of stupefying and rape, but guilty of a minor charge of offering to supply a Class B drug.
Now this fourth man on trial, who is a friend of the other three, will walk free, after the judge found evidence from a defence witness "impressive" and "truthful".
The prosecution had initially accused two of the other men of drugging the woman, but later dropped the charges of stupefaction against them. However, one of those men – who was a defendant in the first trial – has admitted he was at the house on August 5, 2018, and indecently assaulted her by touching her breasts.
The prosecution showed this fourth man was in chat groups with the others, and made a number of demeaning comments in messages.
There was no suggestion he was involved in drugging the woman and he claimed the sexual violation he was accused of never happened.
Defence witness
Today, the witness called by the defence told a very different story of the night of the alleged assault on August 5, 2018.
Her depiction of events followed claims from the alleged victim who told the court she saw a woman sitting on the end of the couch while she was being sexually violated.
The alleged victim said this woman, who she did not know, sat there emotionless and watched while it happened.
In court this morning, the defence witness claimed she was the woman sitting on the end of the couch. But she denied anything inappropriate took place, saying they were all hanging out together after a night out.
She claimed the alleged victim was “absolutely fine” and “coherent”.
“We were just talking,” she told the court.
“Her whole demeanour was nothing to worry about.”
She claimed music was being played through the TV, with the alleged victim choosing some of the songs.
“There were comments about bruises she had,” she said.
“She said she said she’d been moving offices, and she’d been lifting heavy boxes and that’s why she had bruises.”
Asked whether a sexual violation had happened, she strongly denied the allegation: “That absolutely did not happen.”
In cross examination, the prosecution pointed out a witness had described the alleged victim as appearing “very drunk”, and to be “slurring her words”, with her eyes “rolling around” in her head earlier in the night at Mama Hooch.
The witness' appraisal of the woman as “coherent” was very different, but she stuck by it: “I’m saying what I saw and how she was.”
The Crown asked her for a detailed description of what the other woman was wearing, remarking she had a very clear memory of certain facts.
“I thought she was wearing a skirt, but I don’t know,” she said.
The alleged victim had actually been wearing jeans - and claimed they had been removed, leaving her naked from the bottom down.
“Did you see her with just her top on and nothing on her bottom,” the prosecutor asked.
“No, at no point did she have nothing on her bottom,” she replied.
She strongly denied suggestions she was lying to protect her friend, the defendant.
“I would never come here and lie to protect someone,” she said.
“That’s what the Crown says you have done – you have lied, and you are protecting [the defendant],” the prosecutor responded.
“And I’m saying that’s not the case,” she replied.
SHARE ME