Justice Lisa Preston began her final summing up of the case on Friday.
She continued yesterday, laying out the Crown and defence cases and talking to the jury about the essential elements of the charges they needed to consider.
She also took time to explain consent to the jury.
“Allowing a sexual act because of the application of force … or the threat or fear of any force – does not amount to consent,” she said.
“If she is asleep or unconscious when the sexual activity occurs – that is not consent.
“If she is so affected by alcohol that she cannot consent or refuse to consent … none of those cases is consent.”
The jury was provided with a question trail to help them decide whether Muchirahondo was guilty or not of each charge.
Justice Preston then went through each charge reminding the jury of what the Crown and defence say what happened and outlining what they needed to consider and agree on to reach a guilty verdict.
She said for each charge jurors must be unanimous in their decision – and sure beyond reasonable doubt.
If they were not they had to acquit Muchirahondo.
The jury was also reminded that it was not for the accused to prove his innocence – the onus was entirely on the Crown to satisfy the jury the charges were proven.
Justice Preston finished her summary this morning and the jury retired to begin deliberations at 10.55am.
Last week Crown prosecutor Claire Boshier spent a full day in court making her final address to the jury.
She began her closing by reading out some of the words of the 15 women who claimed they were raped and or assaulted by Muchirahondo.
“I was not conscious, so there was no way I could say no,” said Boshier, as reported by RNZ.
“Raped me – not having sex – rape.”
“She couldn’t walk straight, could barely hold herself up. She was slurring her words. She was almost completely blackout drunk.
“When someone is in a state like that, that’s just taking advantage, that’s not consent.”
Boshier said none of the women gave consent to the sexual contact – some were asleep when the “sex” started, so drunk they could not give consent, or were so drunk they passed out during sex.
In other cases, the women repeatedly said no, but were ignored.
“Mr Muchirahondo is a man who has disregard for the concept of consent,” Boshier said.
“What the other party wants or even what state she is in, is irrelevant to him. He simply does not care. He is focused on what he wants … it was predatory.”
Muchirahondo’s lawyer, Anselm Wiliams, spoke to the jury for two days.
“Standing back and looking at it (the Crown closing) he must be guilty. But that approach is wrong,” he said.
“You are required to carefully examine the evidence that has been presented … for each and every charge that Mr Muchirahondo faces.
“Only when you do that dispassionately … you can make a proper judicial decision.”
Williams said it was not his job to convince the jury to “like” the accused, or to defend his character.
He said “questions of morals, views and attitude” held by Muchirahondo “are of very little importance”.
The only thing that was important was the facts.
“[The Crown] must make you sure that each of those important elements has been established. Only when you are sure can you accept the Crown submission.
“Where you cannot be sure – you must return a verdict of not guilty.”
Williams urged the jury to consider the evidence of each of the 15 complainants as being “equivalent to 15 separate trials”.
“You must forensically examine every charge,” Williams said.
“Once you conduct that process, and once you drill down into the allegations – you will realise there are real issues with them.
“You will be left with no alternative than to return verdicts of not guilty to all of the charges.
“It is important not to jump to conclusions simply because 15 women made allegations. Each allegation needs to be proven by the Crown and it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Williams said Muchirahondo’s “complex personal life” needed to be taken into account.
He was born and raised in Zimbabwe. His father had 13 wives and he has more than 30 siblings.
He has four of his own children with multiple women.
“He has a different attitude towards sex than we might ordinarily expect in this country,” said Williams.
“The law is no different for Mr Muchirahondo than it is for any one of us – but his conduct must be viewed in the context of his life and his experiences up until the point of sexual connection.
“In Africa, a woman will play hard to get; she will act like she doesn’t want it – but she really does.”
Williams said his client “never used physical violence in order to force people to have sex with him” – however he was “persistent”.
“But you can’t equate persistence or selfishness with guilt,” he told the jury.
“The Crown attempted to characterise Mr Muchirahondo as being indifferent to consent … I submit on his behalf that that is not true.
“Be very, very careful – persistence does not equate to indifference.
“He is not the sober predator the Crown say he is.”
The Herald will report the verdicts after they have been given in court.
Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 18 years with a particular focus on family violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz
Christchurch rape trial: Jury retires to consider fate of alleged ‘predator’ John Hope Muchirahondo
