By Anna Harcourt and Mandy Te

A re-trial will be held for a 25-year-old Wellington man after a jury was unable to reach a verdict on four rape charges today.

The man, who was facing eight charges, was found not guilty on two indecent assault and two unlawful sexual connection charges. 

He stood emotionless in court as the verdict was read out.

The jury needed to either come to a unanimous verdict, meaning all of them agreed or a majority verdict where 10 of the jury members agreed. 

They were unable to do this for the four rape charges, resulting in a hung jury. 

The Crown prosecution asked for a re-trial for the four rape charges, which was granted by Judge Andrew Becroft. 

The man’s name, address and occupation are all suppressed pending the re-trial, meaning he cannot be named.

The trial has been running in the Wellington District Court for the last two weeks. 

It centred around consent, with the prosecution arguing he offended against young people who were either asleep or affected by alcohol, initiating and continuing sexual activity when they were not in a position to consent. 

The defence argued that for the four rape charges, the defendant accepted that sexual activity occurred but it was his belief and understanding at the time that all of them were consenting to sexual activity. 

And for the two indecent assault charges and two unlawful sexual connection charges, the defendant denied anything happened at all. And if sexual assaults did occur, he said it wasn’t him who committed them. 

Judge Andrew Becroft told the jury on Tuesday that it had not been an easy trial. 

“This has dealt with some of the most intimate circumstances that humans can talk about.”

The man will appear in court again on November 8.

Here’s a breakdown of what the jury found him on each charge

  • sexual violation by rape: unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict
  • sexual violation by rape: unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict
  • sexual violation by rape: unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict
  • sexual violation by rape: unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict
  • sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection: not guilty
  • sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection: not guilty
  • indecent assault: not guilty
  • indecent assault: not guilty

This is what the judge said to the jury on Friday 

Judge Andrew Becroft summed up the evidence and advised the jury of the law they needed to apply when deciding if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges. 

The judge said “the real issues in this trial are about credibility and reliability”. 

“The onus and standard of proof is probably the most important direction of all. It’s the cornerstone of all criminal trials. You must treat the accused as innocent until the Crown has proved guilt in respect of the eight charges,” Judge Becroft said. 

The Ministry of Justice defines the burden of proof as the responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation. In criminal cases (like this one), “the prosecution has this responsibility and the standard of proof that applies is beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Judge Becroft said the defendant gave evidence, when he did not have to do so. 

“The fact that he has, does not change who has to prove the charges,” and the jury had to decide for each charge whether the Crown proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he said.

Judge Becroft told the jury there was room for sympathy and prejudice to occur in this case, and they should “guard against” those. 

“This is not a court of moral judgement. You cannot let thoughts or feelings influence clinically-made decisions … your verdicts are decided by your head or brain, not by your heart or emotions.” 

Where to get help: