Senior navy officer allegedly sought kiss from junior

A junior Navy officer has given evidence at a court martial in Auckland, describing an alleged off-duty incident involving a senior officer during an overseas deployment in 2023, telling the panel the moment "stuck" with him and later led to fear about reporting it.

The accused, a senior Navy officer, has pleaded not guilty to one charge of doing an act likely to prejudice service discipline, under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. Interim name suppression remained in place.

Giving evidence in open court, the junior officer told the court the incident occurred while Navy personnel were socialising off duty at a civilian bar during an overseas deployment in 2023.

He said he saw the accused gesture through a glass window, indicating for a kiss, before later motioning for him to come inside and kiss them on the cheek. He told the court he complied, in view of other members of the ship’s company.

“It was a relatively shocking thing to see,” he said.

“That event stuck... and will stick with me.”

The court heard the interaction happened during a social occasion, with personnel in civilian clothing and alcohol being consumed.

The junior officer told the court he did not make a complaint at the time and was later approached by military police more than a year after the alleged incident.

He said he initially downplayed what had happened and did not tell the full truth.

“I had been effectively ambushed by military police,” he said, adding he was preparing what he described as a critical time in his training.

“I wanted absolutely nothing to do with what was going on.”

Under cross-examination, he accepted he had lied initially. He also accepted he was not treated differently in later postings.

However, he told the court he feared professional consequences if he spoke up earlier.

“I’d seen what happened to people when they got on [the accused’s] bad side,” he said.

When re-examined by the Crown, the junior officer told the panel he tried to rationalise the incident and suppress its impact.

“I wanted to cover my tracks and hide under a bush,” he said.

“The truth is there was absolutely something wrong with it. I compartmentalised a lot in my head… it’s something I’ve been discussing a lot with my psychologist, and I felt like I justified what had happened.”

The defence has challenged the junior officer’s recollection of the night, pointing to alcohol consumption, the passage of time and inconsistencies in earlier accounts. The officer accepted alcohol affected his decision-making but maintained the key sequence of events remained clear.

The court heard the events unfolded during an overseas deployment in 2023, following a day in which ship duties had been completed and personnel were released on shore leave.

The junior officer told the court that earlier in the evening, a group of officers gathered onboard the ship for drinks, having changed out of uniform and into civilian clothing. He described the gathering as social and informal, with alcohol available.

He said the accused was present during that time and briefly reprimanded him for wearing dog tags with civilian clothing, telling him to "sort himself out". He said he removed the dog tags and rejoined the group.

Later that evening, a smaller group of junior officers went ashore to continue socialising at a civilian bar. The court heard that a large number of the ship’s company later ended up at the same venue, alongside members of the public.

The junior officer said he had been at the bar for some time, socialising and drinking, before seeing the accused arrive later in the evening. It was after that point, he said, the interaction central to the Crown’s case occurred.

Before hearing any evidence, the judge reminded the military panel that their role was to decide the facts of the case based solely on the evidence presented in court.

The panel was told the burden of proof rested entirely with the Crown, which must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to give evidence or prove innocence.

The judge also warned panel members not to draw any adverse inference from the presence of an escort beside the accused, saying it is standard court martial procedure.

They were instructed to keep an open mind until all evidence has been heard, not to discuss the case outside the deliberation room, and not to conduct any research or seek information about the case online or through social media.

The panel was told that lawyers’ statements were not evidence, and that assessing credibility requires looking at the totality of the evidence, not a witness’s demeanour alone.

The accused was called to give evidence by the defence, telling the court they did not encourage the junior officer to kiss them and that nothing improper occurred.

They described the evening as a social and relaxed occasion, saying greetings such as hugs or kisses on the cheek were common in off-duty settings.

“If he came to kiss me on the cheek, it wouldn’t have been anything out of the ordinary,” the accused told the court.

“It’s what people do, especially when you’re out.”

The accused said their recollection of the night was “good” and denied the interaction described by the Crown ever occurred.

They also rejected the suggestion that their conduct had any negative impact on discipline aboard the ship.

“There was never any doubt as to the state of discipline on the ship,” they said.

The court heard evidence from another senior officer who was with the accused for most of the evening.

He told the panel he did not see the alleged interaction and did not observe anything inappropriate.

“I did not see anything of that nature,” he said.

The officer told the court he and the accused spent most of the night together and said alcohol did not affect his memory of events. He also rejected the Crown’s suggestion that he had colluded with the accused.

Asked about the atmosphere that evening, he described it as friendly and social, saying greetings such as hugs or kisses were not unusual in that setting.

Judge William Hastings reminded the military panel – made up of senior defence personnel – that their role was to decide the facts based solely on the evidence presented in court.

He told them the burden of proof rested entirely with the Crown and that lawyers' submissions were not evidence.

The panel was instructed to keep an open mind until all evidence has been considered and to reach a verdict without prejudice or sympathy.

Both sides are now delivering their closing submissions.

Judge Hastings will sum up the case on Tuesday, before the military panel retires to consider its verdict.