A jury will continue its deliberations on Monday to decide whether an Invercargill man indecently assaulted two child victims and induced a sexual act and raped one of them.
The Crown’s case was that one victim was aged 5 when she was indecently assault while the other victim was 8 when she was raped, induced to do a sexual act and indecently assaulted, and indecently assaulted again at 12.
The offending happened during three separate incidents between 2005 and 2017.
The Court of Appeal quashed decisions after the first trial after appeals by both the Crown and the defence, the judge told jurors on Monday.
In his closing address on Thursday, Crown prosecutor Riki Donnelly said as neither victim was aware of the other before the allegations were made, the jury could be sure there was no collusion between the parties.
That being the case, it demonstrated either both had got it wrong, it was a remarkable coincidence or, as the Crown would suggest, the acts did in fact happen.
While the man said he had slept in his tracksuit pants while at the younger girl’s house, a pair of boxer shorts, similar to ones she had described, were found at the defendant’s home.
Defence counsel Hugo Young said the evidence of the younger victim could only be described as a figment.
Evidence she had given in which she said her brother had been beaten up by the defendant, her brother needing frozen peas for his injuries, was untrue and as a result her whole evidence could be deemed so.
Mr Young said it was physically impossible for the man to rape the girl given she was standing and he was seated on a couch with his legs wrapped around the back of her.
The man’s evidential police interview, in which he denied the allegations and described what had happened, was logical and truthful, Mr Young said.
The girl’s evidence was totally in "lala land".
In summing up yesterday morning, Judge Rollo said jurors would have to decide how much weight they gave to propensity evidence.
"If you find it is not a pattern of behaviour that is shown in the way the Crown alleges, then you must look closely at each charge based on its own facts without cross-relationship."
The jury retired at 11.07am yesterday and was given leave to go home at 5pm.
