The trial of a 58-year-old Dunedin man accused of sexual violation has ended in a mistrial, the dismissal of one charge and the amendment of another.
The man, whose name remains suppressed, had denied three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection from offences allegedly committed in Dunedin and Timaru between 20 and 24 years ago.
During the first day of the hearing before Judge Michael Crosbie and a jury in the Dunedin District Court on Tuesday, the complainant was warned several times to restrict her evidence to what she could remember seeing and happening to her, not what others might have said.
At the start of yesterday's hearing, the jurors asked the judge whether the accused had prior criminal convictions and were told he had none.
The complainant then continued her evidence under cross-examination by defence counsel Anne Stevens but made further comments about matters not directly related to her and was again warned.
Following in-chambers discussions with Mrs Stevens and Crown counsel Robin Bates, Judge Crosbie declared a mistrial.
He told the jurors the trial process was about fairness. The accused was entitled to the presumption of innocence until charges against him had been found proved on the basis of admissible evidence.
The complainant had been warned about restricting her evidence to matters directly relating to her. But, despite those warnings, she had continued to make what could only be called gratuitous comments'', the judge said.
It was apparent from their question, there was a real risk, one, or some, or all of them, could have been influenced by what the complainant said, Judge Crosbie told the jurors. So he had decided to declare a mistrial.
There might be a retrial at some stage, but it would be clear to them it would be on a different basis as one charge had gone and another had been amended from sexual violation to indecent assault.
And while it might be disappointing for them that they could not complete the trial process, Judge Crosbie said that, "as the gatekeeper of fairness'', he made no apologies because he had to ensure the person on trial received a fair trial.
The man was remanded on bail to next month for further consideration of his case. The order for name suppression was continued.
