A man convicted of repeatedly raping and assaulting his wife in New Zealand has lost his appeal, with the Court of Appeal upholding the guilty verdicts. The man, who moved to New Zealand with his wife after an arranged marriage in 2017, had argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the standard of proof and the definition of consent, The New Zealand Herald reported on 9 august 2024.
The case highlights the severe abuse faced by the woman, who endured ongoing violence, bullying, and pressure from her in-laws to work illegally. The abuse escalated to repeated sexual assaults by her husband. Despite his denials, he was found guilty of several charges, including rape, unlawful sexual connection, and physical assaults.
In April 2023, the Tauranga District Court sentenced the man to seven years and ten months in prison. The defence had claimed the wife fabricated the allegations to leave her husband after moving to New Zealand. However, the jury accepted her evidence of sustained abuse, including instances where she was too frightened to resist his advances.
The husband’s appeal was based on several grounds, including claims of misdirection on what constitutes consent and concerns about double jeopardy. His lawyer, Ron Mansfield KC, argued that the jury was not properly guided on whether consent given reluctantly or later regretted still constituted consent. The defence also suggested that because the couple was in a longstanding marital relationship, the husband may have believed his wife consented to sex, even if reluctantly.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, stating that the trial’s defence was not based on reluctant consent but on a complete denial of the alleged non-consensual acts. The appeal judges found that the jury had received adequate instructions and had rightly distinguished between specific instances of violence and the broader pattern of abuse described by the wife.
The husband had also argued that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent, given that he was acquitted on some charges of violence but convicted on the sexual violation charges. The Court of Appeal dismissed this, noting that the jury was entitled to accept some parts of the wife's testimony while rejecting others.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds, and the man’s convictions remain in place. The case underscores the challenges faced by migrant women in abusive relationships and the importance of legal recourse in holding perpetrators accountable.
ISSUE
-3.jpg)
