Allegations of Sexual Abuse
	False Allegations
	Michael Neville case
	Manawatu Standard December 2 2004 Sex assault jury back in court today by David Eames A Palmerston North District Court jury yesterday went to a hotel room for the night, stuck for a verdict in the case of Horowhenua schoolteacher Michael Warren Neville, accused of indecently assaulting four of his female pupils. The assaults allegedly occurred between 1999 and 2003. The jury retired about 3.15pm, but when unable to reach a decision it was sequestered by Judge Les Atkins about 10pm. Earlier yesterday, Crown solicitor Ben Vanderkolk said evidence in the case could be broken down into five categories: the complainants' evidence, peripheral evidence, evidence common to all the complainants, Neville's evidence, and that of the character witnesses. Though it was an unpleasant task, it was the jury's job to judge Neville to a standard beyond reasonable doubt. He said the four children who made the allegations against Neville were not likely to be lying. Though they could be honestly mistaken, the children were not "inherently untruthful, dishonest or unreliable". Mr Vanderkolk also blasted defence witnesses who attacked the character of two of the complainants as liars. Evidence was given in court that at least one of the girls had been accused of dishonesty at the school. The matter had been dealt with at the time and Mr Vanderkolk said it was a "cynical and sinister" defence ploy to resurrect it during the trial in an attempt to discredit the complainant. "If it didn't warrant attention then.……why does it suddenly matter now, and how can it be elevated to the level as painting her as a liar?" Defence counsel Bruce Squire QC slammed a Crown description of character witnesses who appeared for Neville as "driven by bias, admiration or disbelief". Mr Vanderkolk had said the jury should be careful not to be overly influenced by character witnesses who demonstrate "emotive disbelief". But Mr Squire said the Crown had a nerve calling the witnesses biased when it had not cross-examined a number of them. Though the four charges should be considered separately, the jury could examine the "commonality" of the charges. But the evidence of the complainants was the most important aspect of the case to consider, he said. "These charges stand and fall on what you make of these girls' evidence." The jury was to return at 9am today.