Wellington District Court (file image). Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller
A jury has not been able to reach a verdict on four charges of rape against a 25-year-old man at Wellington District Court today.
But it found him not guilty of the other four charges he faced - two of unlawful sexual connection and two of indecent assault.
Judge Andrew Becroft has ordered a retrial for the rape charges, and the defendant's name suppression continues.
The jury of 11 had to reach at least a majority (10 to one) verdict.
It reached a majority on the indecent assaults and one unlawful sexual connection charge, and was unanimous on the other unlawful sexual connection charge.
The defence had argued throughout the trial that the alleged rapes, and one of the unlawful sexual connection incidents, were consensual sexual activity - and that the defendant believed he had consent.
For the other charges, they argued if anything happened in those incidents, the accused was not involved.
But the prosecution said the women had no reason to lie, that their testimony was credible, and that there was a pattern of offending.
They said in all cases the complainants and the defendant had been drinking and socialising with friends and that they were intoxicated and asleep or nearly asleep when the man assaulted them.
Judge Becroft told the jury during his summing up that the onus was completely on the Crown to prove each charge individually.
But he also gave them some direction for how to treat what the Crown argued was a pattern of offending.
The defence had said the complainants could not help but be influenced by accusations against a group of men, including the accused, on social and news media - which arose before any charges were laid.
But the prosecution argued the social media posts were only relevant in that they were a reason why complainants went to police when they did.
Throughout the trial the complainants and witnesses said they struggled to remember things because the alleged incidents were years ago and involved alcohol and drugs.
Defence lawyer Val Nisbet had said he was concerned by the "recalled" memories of complainants and friends.
"We know the friends were in contact with each other and memories ... can easily be impacted by discussions with each other."
But Crown lawyer Rushika De Silva had said while the incidents happened some time ago, the complainants' imperfect recall did not mean they were lying, or that their evidence was unreliable.