Counsel for a man accused of rape says there is a big difference between being intoxicated and being incapacitated, as the question of consent looms over the trial.
A Dunedin man charged with sexual violation by rape says he did not think the complainant was too drunk to consent when the pair had intercourse in the back seat of a vehicle in the early hours of December 24, 2022.
The trial before Judge Michael Turner in the Dunedin District Court will continue on Monday, after the jury heard closing arguments yesterday.
The pair had never met face to face but decided to have some drinks after messaging each other via Snapchat.
The defendant said he tried to drive the woman home but she wanted to go to a lookout instead.
The woman says she does not remember the details of meeting the man or the drive to the Signal Hill lookout.
During cross-examination this week, the complainant was unclear on how much she drank, whether the man had suggested sex and whether she had moved to the back seat of her own volition.
Counsel Meg Scally said the police work had involved "serious oversight" and she encouraged the jury to remember the evidence which did not support the notion the woman had been grossly intoxicated.
"Remember, there is a big difference between being intoxicated and being incapacitated," she said.
Ms Scally said the 111 call made by the woman did not indicate she had been severely affected by alcohol nor unconscious merely moments earlier.
Six minutes after the call was made, two police officers arrived on the scene, finding the woman alone and "partly in a gutter" in Signal Hill Rd, the court heard.
The jury heard from those officers, who said the woman appeared intoxicated, confused and distressed.
Crown prosecutor Pip Norman highlighted the inconsistencies in the defendant’s statements to police.
The man said while the woman was initially "wobbly" when they first met up in the Octagon, she did not present as "too drunk" to consent.
"What you told police happened is different to what you are saying now," Ms Norman said.
"In the original statement he says numerous times, she was ‘too drunk’, ‘so drunk’."
The man, who required an interpreter throughout the proceedings, did not have one present at the time of his initial police interview.
"Those were the only words I knew at that time, because I’m not good at English.
"I drank and I was nervous, so I don’t remember everything," the defendant said.
Ms Norman said the defendant’s explanation was implausible and nonsensical.
"The story starts to evolve and it is still evolving," Ms Norman said.
When the complainant gave evidence earlier this week, she was accused of making up the allegation because of her hurt feelings.
"The narrative of a revenge lie by a jilted female against an uncaring male is designed to ignite and appeal to unconscious biases about women," Ms Norman said.
"It’s a tale as old as time."
The jury will retire to reach their verdict next week.
