Jury Discharged in Sexual Assault Trial Over Impermissible Questions

A sexual assault trial in New Zealand was abruptly halted when the jury posed questions that suggested they were engaging in impermissible reasoning regarding the complainant's sexual history and clothing. The case involved a woman who alleged that she was sexually violated by a defendant after passing out in a cabin shared with colleagues. DNA evidence confirmed the defendant's involvement, but the trial faced complications when jurors sought clarification on the complainant's past sexual experiences and the nature of her underwear.

The New Zealand Herald

In accordance with Section 44 of the Evidence Act, the complainant was protected from cross-examination about her sexual history without prior judicial permission. Judge William Bill Hastings emphasized that the core issues were whether the complainant had consented to the sexual act and whether the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe she was consenting. The judge had previously ruled that inquiries into the complainant's sexual experiences were not permissible, aiming to prevent biases that could affect the jury's judgment.

The New Zealand Herald

During the trial, after the complainant began her testimony, jurors submitted questions regarding the specifics of her clothing and the timeline of her reporting the incident. The judge permitted the Crown to address some inquiries but deemed the questions about the complainant's sexual history and underwear as indicative of impermissible reasoning. Judge Hastings noted that such inquiries reflected misconceptions about how sexual history impacts credibility and that clothing could signal consent.

The New Zealand Herald

Judge Hastings expressed concern that the jury's questions revealed entrenched misconceptions that could lead to a miscarriage of justice. He stated, “To my mind, the jury questions revealed legally impermissible reasoning at an early stage of the trial that were entrenched to such an extent... a mishap has happened.” Following this, the Crown lawyer, Jeremy Cameron, applied for a mistrial, arguing that the jury's inquiries indicated an investigative role that could not be remedied by judicial direction.

The New Zealand Herald

Danielle Nicholson, general manager of a regional Rape Crisis center, criticized the jury's line of questioning, stating that such inquiries are rooted in outdated beliefs that unjustly place responsibility on survivors of sexual violence. She emphasized the need for ongoing education to combat harmful narratives that perpetuate victim-blaming. Nicholson remarked, “Survivors already face enormous barriers to coming forward. Outdated attitudes like these only reinforce fear, shame, and silence.”

The New Zealand Herald

Following the discharge of the jury, a new trial commenced the following week, resulting in a guilty verdict for the defendant on charges of sexual violation. This outcome underscores the ongoing challenges within the judicial system regarding the treatment of sexual assault cases and the perceptions surrounding victims.

The New Zealand Herald

• “To my mind, the jury questions revealed legally impermissible reasoning at an early stage of the trial that were entrenched to such an extent and to such a degree that a strong direction would not cure the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. A mishap has happened,” — Judge William Bill Hastings

The New Zealand Herald

• “Questions about a woman’s sexual history or what she was wearing are rooted in outdated and harmful beliefs that incorrectly place responsibility for sexual violence on the survivor rather than the person who committed the harm,” — Danielle Nicholson, General Manager, Rape Crisis Centre

The New Zealand Herald