The jury in the trial of alleged Christchurch rapist John Hope Muchirahondo are now deliberating over their verdicts.
The jury of six women and six men were told they need to decide if the man abused vulnerable women or the complainants were mistaken or making false accusations.
The judge began summing up the case against the 36-year-old Zimbabwean yesterday in the High Court at Christchurch.
Muchirahondo is facing 21 charges of sexual violation by rape and nine of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of not providing access to a cell phone.
Justice Lisa Preston told the jury they had to decide if they believed the evidence of the 15 women who had made complaints.
She said the sexual charges came down to whether the jury accepted the accounts of the 15 disparate women as truthful and reliable when they say they did not consent, and that there was no reasonable grounds for Muchirahondo to believe there was consent.
She said the Crown said that 14 of the 15 complaints were very similar and showed a pattern.
"The Crown says there is a striking and consistent similarity between these women's experiences," said Justice Preston, "and yet in the main they do not know each other or the details of their complaints. The Crown says it would be a remarkable coincidence if their accounts were not true, that Mr Muchirahondo should be wrongly accused of all these allegations in such broadly similar circumstances."
Justice Preston said the Crown said all of the complainants were vulnerable.
"Mostly young women, he took advantage of them (Crown prosecutor) Ms (Claire) Boshier said due to their intoxication, because they were asleep or sedated, in fragile mental health, or simply that he [was] persistent beyond their protests and resistance."
Justice Preston told the jury that the defence said there were no such similarities, and no pattern established by the Crown.
She said in a number of the cases, Muchirahondo was in relationships with the complainants and the defence said those women had now reimagined or recast consensual sexual encounters due to collusion or animosity towards Muchirahondo.
Justice Preston said the defence contended that in two cases, complainants had misidentified Muchirahondo as their rapists, and "the remainder of the complaints are the result of either over-vigorous police investigation, or publicity which has prompted false complaints of what were consensual liaisons even though a complainant might not now remember that".
