|
|
Allegations
of Sexual Abuse in NZ |
|
Evidence inconsistent, defence
says By Court Reporter A jury yesterday
acquitted a 21-year-old man of indecently assaulting an 8-year-old girl. The day-long trial was
heard before Judge Peter Rollo, of Tauranga and a jury of six men and six women.
The accused, a Dunedin
salesman, who was granted final name suppression, was charged with indecently
assaulting an 8-year-old girl on or about November 24, 2004. The accused and the
victim’s mother, who cannot be named because it would identify her daughter,
had met about three months before the alleged incident and had started a
relationship. He often stayed the
night at their home, but would sleep either in the mother’s bed or on one of
two couches in the house. Under examination by
Crown Prosecutor Robin Bates, the girl told the court via closed circuit
television from another room in the court that on the night of the alleged
incident she had been asleep and woke to find the accused with her in her
single bed. She did not have a
clock to tell the time but she said it was dark and guessed it to be about
midnight or 1am. She said the man had
his hands down her boxer shorts and was touching her “private parts”. She was “half asleep”
and scared so she rolled over and went back to sleep. She said the accused
rolled the other way. When she awoke in the
morning he was still in her bed. She got up and got ready for school, not
mentioning the incident to her mother because she was scared the accused
would hurt her. She told her mother
about the incident about a week later. When it was suggested
to her by defence counsel Mike Radford on two occasions that she was lying
and the incident never happened, the girl said she was telling the truth. The girl’s mother told
the court she went to he daughter’s room in the morning to get her up for
school and found the accused in her daughter’s bed. She asked him what he
was doing and when he replied that the couch was uncomfortable, she accepted
his explanation. It was a week later
when she was discussing the accused with her daughter that the allegation
came out, she said. She refuted Mr
Radford’s suggestion the allegation was made up to get back at the accused
for not wanting a serious relationship. In summing up, Mr
Radford said neither the victim nor her mother could be considered reliable
or credible witnesses. He questioned the
mother’s motivations and emotional stability; “ . . . she may not have a firm
grasp of what’s going on”. He had earlier brought
up the woman’s criminal history which included convictions for burglary,
fighting, drug offences and misuse of a telephone and said that showed her
characteristic. “She is someone who is
not necessarily as honest as she could be.“ He also said the victim
was “guessing” some of her evidence and her evidence did not always correlate
with her mother’s. “The victim’s not quite
got a clear picture of what she’s supposed to say. And that’s the sad thing,
isn’t it? She’s the kid in the middle.” However, Mr Bates said
the victim had no reason to lie and she had never swayed from her statement
regarding the actual offending. The jury took just over
two hours to come to a verdict. |
