Panel focuses on drunken night out
A soldier defending allegations he intimidated a bar worker has had the charge dismissed.
The private, who has interim name suppression, is on trial at a court martial at Linton Military Camp.
On Monday he admitted four charges of indecent assault after touching two women’s buttocks twice on the night of August 1, 2022.
He denied a further charge of indecent assault relating to an accusation he reached for the groin of one of the women, as well as charges of intimidation and insubordination.
All incidents are alleged to have happened on the same evening at an onsite bar during a private function.
At day two of the hearing yesterday, prosecutor James Olsen finalised the Crown’s case and said one charge of intimidation had been withdrawn.
That alleged offence centred on the man asking someone “if he went” the bar worker, would they back him up.
She had pushed his hand away from one of the victims earlier and to that he reacted with frustration.
But, during questioning from defence lawyer Matthew Hague, he put it to the woman his client was actually speaking to a friend and never intended for her to hear the statement.
She accepted this could have been the case and with little other evidence the judge formally withdrew the charge.
Hague said the defence would not be calling any evidence of its own and his client did not take the stand.
Instead his focus was on whether or not the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, and the intentions and state of mind of his client on August 1.
During his closing address he told the three-person military panel there was “limited evidence” to prove the remaining indecent assault charge and his client was not trying to touch her private area.
He did not dispute the man reached his arm towards her, but said “if he intended to [touch her] he would have done so”.
The previous day CCTV footage from the bar was played to the court, and Hague said it showed his client sitting by the female with his hand “palm up” on his leg.
The footage showed her stepping back as the male reached forward, and when Hague questioned the woman earlier she conceded she did not know what the man’s intentions were.
In relation to the charge of intimidation, which involved the man stepping towards another bar worker and asking ‘what, are you scared of me’, he said this was not intended to be frightening or confrontational.
“He did not intend to threaten her or know she would be frightened.“
He said his client was also spoken to on the night by an orderly officer about his behaviour, and she told the court he had called her a “ballbag” and “motherf ..... ” in Fijian.
But Hague said the soldier did not know what he was saying, and when the officer warned him about his language he became “compliant and respectful”.
He argued this did not amount to insubordination.
Drinking had affected the man’s state of mind, and the alleged incidents were not “a calculated set of events with the intention of frightening or intimidating” anyone, he said.
But Olsen disagreed and told the panel what was supposed to be a fun night turned into something “sinister” when the male decided he wanted to sleep with two of the women.
He said “preparatory advances were made” but it was “clear” they were not wanted.
He urged the panel to find the soldier guilty on all charges. “It’s what you consider was in his state of mind.”
The court martial continues.