The court martial was held at Burnham Military Camp outside Christchurch. Photo / George Heard
Warning: this article discusses allegations of sexual assault and may be distressing.
A woman who says she was sexually violated by a New Zealand Army officer in a hotel room has been accused by the defence of making up the allegations as a distraction from her own “bad behaviour”.
During cross-examination, defence lawyer Elizabeth Bulger accused the woman of making up a “charade” to make the officer’s life difficult - something she denied.
The officer, who has interim name suppression, appeared for court-martial for a trial that began on Monday at Burnham Military Camp, 30km south of Christchurch. The trial is expected to take one week.
The officer faces one charge of sexual violation and three charges of assault after allegedly slapping the female colleague across the face twice, pouring a drink over her, and sexually violating her in 2017 in a hotel room.
He admitted to pouring a can of Red Bull over the woman before slapping her across the face in June 2017. He denied the second charge of slapping her in the face and sexually violating her in a hotel room a month later.
The officer is charged under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 and Crimes Act 1961 and appeared before Judge Kevin Riordan and a panel of military members.
On Monday, military prosecutor John Whitcombe said the pair, both in their 20s, arranged to meet at a hotel room overseas for a sexual encounter for the officer to “get some anger out”.
But what was supposed to be consensual, allegedly turned violent and forceful, leaving the woman crying and vomiting.
However, Bulger suggested on Tuesday that the entire sexual encounter was consensual and the complainant gave no indication that she wanted to stop.
Bulger suggested the woman lied about the events in the hotel room to create a distraction from her own “bad behaviour”, claiming she was being investigated for her conduct and faced being removed from her army duties for a separate matter.
The woman rejected this, denying there was an investigation or that what happened during the sexual encounter in the hotel room was consensual.
Bulger referred to messages between the pair prior to the sexual encounter which showed the officer saying it wasn’t his intention to leave her “bleeding and in pain” and that if she needed him to stop then he would.
Bulger put it to the woman that the pair had previously engaged in consensual “rough sex” and things like slapping and choking were normal.
She agreed but said the sex was never as forceful as it was during this particular encounter, and she had never cried from sex, as she did on this occasion.
Bulger alleged that the officer didn’t slap her across the face when he first entered the hotel room like she claimed, but only slapped her during sex which was consensual. The woman denied this.
Bulger went on to say the woman and officer had sex a second time that night which was less rough and the officer then fell asleep, giving her the opportunity to leave, but she stayed.
In closing her cross-examination, Bulger accused the woman of making up a “charade” to make the officer’s life difficult by creating false allegations to act as a “smokescreen” for her own conduct. This was rejected by the woman.
A few days after the hotel room encounter the woman sought medical treatment for her swollen face and bloodshot eyes, telling medical staff the swelling was due to a new mascara she had tried at the time before she laid the complaint.
A doctor who specialises in injuries analysed photographic evidence of the complainant’s eyes and said it looked like the woman had suffered from haemorrhages in both eyes, something that was uncommon in young people.
The doctor said the haemorrhages in young people can be caused by ongoing coughing, extensive vomiting, pressure applied around the neck or gagging.
She said the woman’s account of what happened in the hotel room is an “entirely reasonable explanation” for the haemorrhages.
Bulger asked the doctor if the haemorrhages could have been caused without the officer holding the woman in place as she had claimed.
The doctor said it was possible that the injuries could have been sustained without someone being held in place but she thought if someone’s airway was blocked, they would have pulled away if they could.
A pre-recorded interview was played to the court of the officer being interviewed after the complaint was made.
The officer said that the woman didn’t show any signs of wanting to stop during the hotel room encounter and when she vomited it caught them both by surprise.
He said after she vomited, they stopped straight away, got her cleaned up and after about 15 minutes, continued to have sex before falling asleep.
He said some of the messages he had sent her leading up to the sexual encounter came across as “worse than what actually happened” on the night.
While he messaged her saying things such as “I’m likely to slap you hard and be rough” he said it was made clear that if the woman wanted to stop then they would.
He said over the 48 hours after the encounter her eyes were bloodshot, which he accepted might have been caused by the sexual activity, but said at no point did she try to pull away or stop the encounter.
The trial continues.
OPINION: Labour also needs a cup of tea and lie down to calm their nerves.