Judge Philip Connell sent the jury out just before 11.30am today to decide the fate of fast bowler Scott Kuggeleijn who denies raping the woman in her Hamilton flat in May last year.
His lawyer Philip Morgan QC earlier told the jury in the Hamilton District Court to dismiss the charge and says there was no protestation by the alleged victim and that she did consent, albeit reluctantly or regretfully.
However, Crown prosecutor Jacinda Foster said the complainant did say no and even tried to wriggle out from underneath Kuggeleijn, who had her pinned down by her arms.
The judge gave the jury four questions to consider. The first revolved around whether sex actually took place, followed by whether the complainant consented to it.
If they believed she wasn't consenting, the jury had to consider whether the Crown has proven that Kuggeleijn didn't believe she was consenting.
If they agreed with that, they had to decide if Kuggeleijn had reasonable grounds to believe that she was consenting.
Connell suggested the jury considered Kuggeleijn's evidence first. If they accept what he says, they should find him not guilty. Or, if they were unsure, then they must also find him not guilty. But even if they disbelieved Kuggeleijn's evidence they would then need to assess the Crown's submissions in regards to the complainant saying "no".
Morgan accepted the consent wasn't a "lustful" consent in that she passionately wanted to have sex with Kuggeleijn, it was rather she may not have wanted to but she relented and gave in to it happening.
