Friend turned rapist on Wellington party scene
It hit Wellington’s social media like a bomb – allegations of sexual assaults from multiple people on the party scene, masses of victims and a police operation code named Emerald.
But more than three years on – and a long complicated court process later – one man has been found guilty of one rape.
Yesterday, Wellington District Court judge Peter Hobbs sentenced a 27-year-old man to three years and nine months in jail on one charge of rape.
It’s a far cry from where it started.
The trials
By the time he came to his first trial nearly two years had passed but it was just as contentious. An astonishing 29 suppressions were made – mainly to protect the identities of those involved. The evidence took eight days and the four complainants were remarkably consistent. But the jury members were unable to agree.
Nearly another year passed and the second trial came only after a couple of the complainants had elected not to give evidence and strenuous negotiations to resolve the charges came to nothing.
This time the jury found him guilty of one rape and not guilty of another.
Out of eight original charges and four possible victims there was now one proven charge and one victim. And, as Judge Hobbs said, the case now looked nothing like the original allegations.
It’s not possible to know why a jury decides the way it does – the sanctity of the jury is absolute.
So what did the jury hear?
All of the women said he often befriended them through social media – mostly Instagram – as well as linking up through other friends.
They chatted and sometimes met up. There were a number of favoured bars – Dakota, Betty’s, Residence and Ciglo among others. He was invited to drinks at flats as part of the groups.
As the nights wore on, he sometimes asked them if they were going to stay, pointing out it was late, that there was no public transport or that there was room.
And the women noticed him. They called him charismatic. One counted him as a friend. The complainants were all clear, they liked him but none of them were expecting to sleep with him.
But all but one later alleged they woke up to find he had gotten into bed with them. All their stories had an eerie similarity. They had been drinking so in some places their memories were patchy. They woke and he was having penetrative sex with them.
A couple said they were unsure how it happened, blamed themselves or thought it was their partner at the time. They were, however, all clear they had not consented to it happening.
His defence was that he had honestly believed they were consenting and that this was the lifestyle of young people. However, when the final verdicts came in – there was only one charge of rape proven.
Sentencing
Judge Hobbs said the man knew the victim and was friends with other members of the flat she lived in and regularly socialised with them. He had become close friends with her.
He said the victim was vulnerable, in bed asleep and badly affected by alcohol.
He said the man had taken advantage of a good friend. “It was clear that she was in no position to give consent, she was asleep and intoxicated.”
The judge refused permanent name suppression saying the case looked nothing like what was originally – and inaccurately – said.
The victim opposed him getting permanent suppression. The judge granted continued suppression to allow the man to appeal his decision.