He is charged with indecently touching his niece twice when she was under 12 and once when she was under 16. He is also charged with inducing her to do an indecent act on him.
His pleas were deemed not guilty after he refused to enter pleas, instead making statements like, “I uphold my claim of right without prejudice”.
The indecent touching charges related to two incidents in which the man allegedly ran his hands over her legs and one incident in which he is said to have inserted a finger into her vagina. The other charge related to an incident in which the woman claimed the man somehow made her touch his penis through his clothing.
In closing submissions yesterday, Crown prosecutor Lara Marshall said the case rested on the largely uncontested evidence of the complainant, which the jury should accept was credible and reliable.
She was a “remarkably” honest witness who had not tried to elaborate on her evidence, Ms Marshall said. If the jury accepted what she claimed happened, then it could logically also accept those actions by the man were indecent and deliberate.
The jury was given agreed facts based on expert analysis of memory in which they were told an honest witness could still be mistaken. The witness acknowledged there were gaps in her memory, but she was confident in what she did remember, Ms Marshall said.
Snippets stuck in the woman’s mind even after all these years and they were consistent with other markers she remembered such as the death of her father, parties at her house, hairstyles and clothes she once had. By referencing those markers she had been able to figure out how old she had been at the time of each of the alleged offences.
“This was not a woman telling a lie and it was not even suggested to her (by the defendant) that she was,” Ms Marshall said.
The accused had chosen to conduct his own trial but made use of the assistance of a court appointed lawyer Leighvi Maynard.
In a closing address on the man’s behalf, Mr Maynard said the jury shouldn’t conclude the complainant’s evidence was largely uncontested. The fact the man hadn’t put certain propositions to the complainant — that she was lying or her memory was inaccurate — was a reflection that he didn’t understand the court process well enough.
“If he truly accepted the allegations we wouldn’t be here” Mr Maynard said.
He said the complainant’s evidence was unreliable and her memories were changing.
In her earlier police DVD interview, the complainant suggested the inducement for her to touch the man’s penis involved him offering her $20. However, cross-examined on that issue in court, she said the two things weren’t related.
“It’s quite conceivable that she genuinely believed what she said when she came in here but those things were nevertheless inaccurate,” he said.
Evidence given by the woman’s mother and an aunt didn’t incriminate the man and also lacked detail. It wouldn’t help the jury analyse the credibility of the woman’s evidence — the important evidence in this case, Mr Maynard said.
The jury should be concerned about the quality of that evidence.
“You might think this probably happened, this quite likely happened but that’s not enough.You need to be satisfied to the point that you’re sure,” Mr Maynard said.
He asked the jury to imagine it was one of their family members on trial and if so, would they convict that person on this evidence?
The accused elected not to call evidence. Final Crown witnesses ahead of closing addresses included two police officers.
One was the first to inform the man of the allegations. He had declined to undergo an interview saying, “Nah, it’s my family, I’ve got nothing to say, I want to speak to my whānau, I don’t want a third party (police) involved”.
When he was arrested six months later, the man claimed to have “sorted it” and said, “this was a mana war”.
