Judge Nevin Dawson during the sentencing of Peter Brooks in Auckland District Court for sentencing after being convicted of sexual offending against another male. / Jason Oxenham
The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid by a man who sexually assaulted his drunk mate to overturn his convictions.
However in an unusual twist, the three judges who heard the case were not all in agreement with the decision - with one saying she would have ordered aretrial.
In June Glendene man Peter James Brooks, 53, was sentenced to eight years in prison after a jury found him guilty of "abhorrent" sexual offending against a 21-year-old man in 2016.
That verdict came after the victim - and three complainants from previous trials - gave evidence about Brooks' predatory sexual offending.
Brooks was jailed by Judge Nevin Dawson in the Auckland District Court.
Following sentencing the Herald revealed details of Brooks' trial - including how three men he was charged with violating in 1990, 1995 and 2013 were called to give evidence about what he allegedly did to them when they were teenagers.
Brooks was sentenced last week in the Auckland District Court. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Brooks was acquitted after trials for the alleged offending against those three men, but their evidence about encounters with him helped seal his fate.
Their evidence was initially ruled inadmissible, but the Crown appealed that decision and it was overturned by the Court of Appeal, meaning the complainants were allowed to speak up in court.
Brooks argued that should not have happened and in his bid to overturn his convictions, invited the Court of Appeal to "revisit that decision".
His lawyer Ian Brookie said information about one of the complainant's cases was "no longer available" including statements made to police, police notebook entries or job sheets made at the time.
He said it was likely the complainant only went to police after speaking to a "business competitor of the Brooks family" who had put him up to going to police.
The complainant denied that in the 2018 trial when questioned.
In the Court of Appeal decision, released today, Justice Simon France and Justice Forrest Miller rejected Brooks' bid.
"We hold that under ... the propensity evidence ... was admissible at the 2018 trial notwithstanding the absence of investigative and trial records from the 1995 trial," they said.
"The appeal is dismissed."
But Justice Mary Peters had a different view, saying she would have allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial.
She said there was a risk that evidence from one of the earlier complainants "might have had an unfairly prejudicial effect" on Brooks and that "outweighed the probative value" of his evidence.
Given the majority of judges were in favour of dismissing the appeal - that is what happened.
Peter Brooks has been jailed for eight years for sexually violating a man who he had befriended. The victim was drunk and incapable of resisting Brooks' "predatory" behaviour. Photo / Facebook
At sentencing Judge Dawson outlined how Brooks met the victim of the 2016 offending at work and "befriended" him.
The victim - a straight, single man - went out with friends in Auckland city.
He had been drinking for a few hours and decided to catch up with Brooks later in the night.
He went to Brooks' home and was intoxicated when he arrived - feeling sleepy and "struggling to function".
He asked Brooks if he could sleep on the couch but the older man insisted the victim sleep in his bed saying it would be "warmer".
In bed - as the victim drifted in and out of consciousness and was unable to stop Brooks - he was subjected to a sexual assault.
