A court has been told a man entirely invented a story about a prominent businessman fondling him in bed, when he was actually helping him while he was violently ill with food poisoning.
Defence lawyer David Jones QC (right). Photo: Pool / New Zealand Herald / Michael Craig
The defendant, who has interim name suppression, is a wealthy businessman who pleaded not guilty to three charges of indecent assault, relating to three separate complainants over 15 years. He also faces two charges of perverting the course of justice.
The third complainant to take the stand was today cross-examined by the defendant's lawyer, David Jones QC.
It was suggested by Jones the complainant had "partial memory fade" about many of the events of the evening due to the marijuana he had smoked earlier in the evening as well as the food poisoning he had contracted.
Today Jones cross-examined the complainant for about two-and-a-half hours.
The man had earlier told the court he returned to the house where he and the accused were staying late one night. He was vomiting after eating an undercooked pork chop earlier in the day and went to bed alone to try sleep it off. He said the accused turned up in his bedroom, uninvited, having earlier been naked. He said he got into his bed and fondled his penis.
Jones disputed the complainant's version of events that the accused ever touched him improperly.
"I'm going to suggest to you that when [the accused] came into your room he did not get into your bed at all. What do you say about that?" Jones said.
"Incorrect, that's a lie."
"Isn't it the case that he came in and was trying to calm you down because you were frantic, or unsettled? Jones asked.
"No, I was not frantic.
"Were you writhing around, twisting and turning in bed?
"No, I'm curling into a ball, trying to hold on to my stomach.
"Is [the accused] talking to you, telling you to calm down?
"No, he's saying 'embrace me, let me embrace you'. He's saying that while he's spooning me from behind and fondling my penis."
Jones said the businessman had tried to help the clearly unsettled man - that was his reason for being in the room, nothing improper.
Jones challenged the complainant's recollection of other events. He outlined a number of details he thought the complainant had got wrong or contradicted himself in various statements and evidence.
"This incident where you say [the accused] pulled your pants down, I suggest that just didn't happen.
"Your suggestion is wrong" the complainant replied.
"Did you realise that was a problem as far as your story was concerned?" Jones said in regard to a particular detail about the positioning of the cushions in the room.
"No, because it's the truth," the complainant replied.
A couple of times Jones informed the complainant about an apparent contradiction in his evidence. He twice agreed and thanked him for "reminding" him of the detail, but also said this was all five years ago, recalling fine details about a difficult experience.
Late that night, around 3am, the man was taken to the hospital, again for disputed reasons. The complainant said because he was vomiting so much; Jones suggested it was because he was writhing around in bed.
"You don't have a complete recall of things that happened after you left [the house] to go to the hospital do you?
"No... Because I was sexually assaulted by [the businessman] and I was psychologically a bit frazzled about what had happened," the complainant said.
It was after the man was taken to hospital that he gave his first statement to police about the alleged assault.
"Were you in some way not quite there in terms of your ability to recall? Were you under some sort of disability brought on by the food poisoning, potentially drugs, anxiety, paranoia - whatever. Is that what has caused your partial memory fade?
"My exhaustion from the evening would have been more of an indicator rather than drugs that you're referring to. It would have been about six in the morning, I still hadn't slept... I was incredibly exhausted."
Jones also read from an email the man had sent a police officer working on the case, once the defendant had been charged as a result of his allegations. It read: "I'm looking for a journalist to speak to."
Jones, the defence lawyer, asked: "Were you looking to sell your story?"
"No, my intention was not for money. My intention was for it to stop... By this stage I had heard through associates that this had happened to other people who were being mistreated by [the accused]."
The trial before Justice Venning and a jury continues.