A judge yesterday told jurors drunk witnesses were too unreliable to warrant a safe guilty verdict before he took the rare step of discharging a man accused of rape and sexual violation charges.
The Crown outlined the case to jurors at the start of the trial in the Invercargill District Court on Monday.
Its case was that the complainant alleged she had been raped twice by two different men, Collier being one of them, and that he had also performed non-consensual oral sex on the woman.
Yesterday Judge Duncan Harvey told jurors that the facts were the most important aspect of any trial and that a judge must determine, after evidence is heard, whether a case may be left to be decided by a jury.
Sometimes a judge may deem that evidence presented to a jury may result in an unsafe guilty verdict, he said.
"I have directed this is one of those cases.
"None of the evidence [given by partygoers] was particularly reliable and I think blame can be laid squarely at the feet of alcohol."
During the course of the evidential interview with the complainant she admitted she may have been confused about what had happened, he said.
Other witnesses gave evidence saying the complainant had told them she may have had a mind blank for up to an hour on the morning in question.
Where the complainant said no consensual sexual activity had taken place, others said the pair were cuddling, kissing and giggling while lying on the couch under a blanket.
The evidence was contradictory, Judge Harvey said.
"When I did put all these factors together, if a conviction occurred, it would be unsafe."
While jurors may have felt they had wasted the past four days, he consoled them by saying the only way cases of such a nature could be determined was for a trial to be held.
He also told them it was very rare for a judge to take such steps to discharge a case in this manner.
There was no criticism of police, the Crown or any other person involved in the trial, adding he did not believe anyone involved was deliberately lying when giving evidence.
