An Invercargill man found not guilty of indecently assaulting a 6-year-old girl on Christmas Day 2019, is already serving jail time for previous sexual offending against children, it was revealed after the trial yesterday.
In the suppression discussion, it was revealed by Judge Robert Spear, that Simmonds (53) had been sentenced in August 2020 to four years, two months’ jail for sexual offending he had admitted and that he was already registered as a child sex offender.
Jurors in the trial which began in the Invercargill District Court, on Monday took just over an hour to reach their verdict.
In his closing, Crown prosecutor Riki Donnelly said the girl’s evidence was clear, cogent and compelling.
Despite there being a two-year gap from a video interview conducted by police at the time of the alleged offending to the time she gave evidence in court, the fundamental facts she first described to her mother were the same.
Discussion about a red mark at the top of her leg which she had described as a bruise, disappearing after the family prayed together was not a reason for not believing her accusation, he said.
Simmonds’ evidence given at the end of the trial did not just differ from the girl’s evidence, it also differed from other witnesses’ evidence, he said.
Defence counsel Hugo Young said the accusation was the imagining of a 6-year-old girl.
It was her mother who had initiated a conversation about the possibility of someone touching her genital area and the story had developed from the girl’s mother’s poignant and persistent questions.
The girl’s reply was just to make her mother happy, he said.
"This is just a messed-up situation where Mr Simmonds has been accused of something he didn’t do."
He said there was no DNA or medical evidence to back up the allegation and no-one else had seen anything.
In summing up, Judge Spear said the trial was not a credibility contest and even if they did not believe the man’s evidence and even if they thought he had probably done it, did not mean they should return a guilty verdict.
It was necessary for the jury to accept the evidence heard during the trial left them beyond reasonable doubt, the man had committed the crime to ensure guilt, he said.
