The men in the Christchurch District Court. While the case details can finally be reported the men's identities will remain secret for now. Photo / Pool
Two Christchurch men have been found guilty of a litany of offending against more than 20 women at a city bar and restaurant including rape, sexual violation, stupefying and making intimate visual recordings.
The men will be sentenced across two days in July for the offending - described in court as “predatory”.
The trial for the pair and another man started on February 7 in the Christchurch District Court.
Until today, blanket suppressions have prevented the Herald from publishing any specific detail about the case.
Judge Paul Mabey lifted that suppression today at 5pm, including the names of the two men. However, their identities can still not be reported after they filed a notice in the High Court that they will appeal his decision - keeping their identities secret for now.
A third man retains name suppression for other reasons. He denied multiple charges of sexual assault and stupefying and was acquitted on every count except one of offering to supply an illicit drug.
The trial was initially set to be heard by a jury but days before the start date the men applied to have a judge-alone hearing.
Judge Paul Mabey travelled from Tauranga to hear the case - which took more than two months and spanned more than 130 witnesses including victims, complainants and their friends and family.
Crown prosecutor Andrew McRae said over a number of years the men “targeted” women at the bar to satisfy their “fixation” with sex.
The women said they were drugged and raped or violated by the men.
The main offenders initially denied all of the charges - but a week into the trial one of them pleaded guilty to 21 charges of sexually assaulting women.
The rest of the charges were defended but Judge Mabey found the two men guilty on a total of 68 charges.
A blanket suppression order was in place to protect the fair trial rights of the duo.
They were to go on trial together with a fourth man - but successfully fought to get the charges he was facing separated. The group were set to go on trial before a jury on those charges on May 1.
However, the Crown today confirmed it would not proceed with the case against the three men already convicted, and the fourth man would stand trial alone.
Judge Mabey, in refusing the two rapists name suppression said their reasons for wanting to keep their names secret did not meet the threshold for undue hardship.
They claimed having their names published would cause extreme hardship for family members.
Judge Mabey said it was a “normal consequence” for people closely associated with offenders to suffer shame and embarrassment.
He said there was “no basis” for suppression relating to the men to continue.
“Suppression was only to preserve fair trial rights in a jury trial which will no longer take place,’ he said.
“The media may publish as they see fit subject to their obligations to be fair and accurate.
“The public interest in this trial is intense. I can see no possible basis to suggest permanent suppression after conviction on multiple serious convictions can outweigh that public interest and the principle of open justice. "
A hearing to determine any future suppression for the two convicted rapists will take place next month.
The third man will have his bid for suppression heard at his sentencing hearing.
During the trial, Judge Mabey heard evidence from the women who had been violated and traumatised by the men.
Their stories are strikingly similar. They went to the bar. They purchased or accepted a drink.
The rest of their night is a blur.
Some made it home untouched - albeit “out of it” or really and unfamiliarly unwell.
Some ended up in the bar toilets or at a nearby venue, sexually assaulted as they ebbed in and out of consciousness. Powerless to control their actions, their bodies, and their voice.
Their memories of the night came in fits, starts, flashbacks - horrifying snippets of a night gone terribly wrong.
They recalled being groped, grabbed, slapped. Their hair being pulled. Their clothes being removed. Being dragged, pinned, trapped.
They recalled violation by one or more of the men - things being done to their bodies that they could not control or stop.
One by one they sat in the dock and gave evidence for the Crown, then faced the often gruelling and graphic cross-examination by the defence.
Their memories of the night were limited but they were all adamant - staunchly so - of one thing.
“I did not consent.
“I consented to nothing.”
They continued: “We can’t walk, we can’t talk… that is not consent.
“I definitely wasn’t in a position to consent, there’s no way.
They said: “I know it was a sexual assault no one has the right to try have sex with his while we are passing out.
“He was so strong and I couldn’t move… I remember I must have been trying to get away and trying to walk and I couldn’t walk.
“I was trying to push him off… I just remember my body was feeling really weak and it wasn’t doing what I wanted it to.
“I was trying to get out.”
Alongside the victims and complainants, Judge Mabey also heard hours of evidence about various chat groups the men participated in - sharing their sexual escapades in explicit detail, their lurid comments and judgements on women and their bodies, plans of how they would achieve their next conquest.
They joked about rape, they joked about roofies - benzodiazepines are often used in drug-facilitated sexual assaults - and they spent an inordinate amount of time graphically outlining their seemingly neverending sexual desires.
The younger of the men joked about drugging his then-partner. They discussed - at length and intimately - women they knew, bar patrons.
There was video too - 14 minutes of crude footage of a woman being raped and assaulted made up of 11 short snippets which the court heard was recorded without her knowledge.
The Crown said the men were “fixated” with sex. They targeted “much younger” women for it and they had a clear “indifference to consent”.
Effectively, if they wanted a woman - they would do what they needed to get her.
“There were occasions where females rejected unwanted sexual advances from the defendants after being given free drugs and or alcohol. These females were significantly younger than the defendants and were not sexually interested,” McRae said.
“Further, [the men worked to] facilitate the administration of the alcoholic drinks, events with stupefying substance. It’s alleged that this was to encourage the atmosphere… to lower the resistance to the advances.”
For three years the “predators” used the bar as a hunting ground, using its toilet cubicles to offend - or leading their prey to another site with the promise of free drinks or recreational drugs and doing the unthinkable to them there in various areas.
But on July 16, 2018, two brave women - one who had turned 18 just days earlier - went to police and started talking and the unravelling of the vulturine offenders began.
Operation Sinatra - led by Detective Inspector Scott Anderson - was born and the complaints about the bar and the men accused by the first two victims started to flow.
By September that year police were looking into upward of 10 complaints from patrons of the bar who claimed their drinks had been spiked, some of whom also claimed sexual assault.
Soon after the first man was charged with unlawful sexual connection, attempted unlawful sexual connection, two counts of stupefying, and supplying, administering or dealing in ecstasy.
Next, the Operation Sinatra team went bar-to-bar passing out leaflets on drink spiking and urging anyone who had been affected to come forward.
The case against the men began to snowball - the complainant count was well over 20 by November and police moved and arrested and charged the second main offender and two associates.
There have been suggestions that the police could have acted earlier in stopping the offending - that they were aware of rumours, and allegations swirling around the men at the centre of the sexual assaults.
Police say yes, there were several incidents earlier that put the men and the bar on their radar but no single thing raised any serious red flags - none were linked and there was certainly no indication a deeper dive was needed at the time.
The case took almost five years to get to trial and while some involved and watching on have criticised the process, there were legitimate factors causing the delay.
Multiple pre-trial arguments - including some taken to the Court of Appeal - and the Covid-19 pandemic meant the start date was pushed out multiple times, like many other trials throughout New Zealand.
Hundreds of potential jurors were summoned to court for February 7 and the Town Hall was booked to house them all for the process.
The thought was that with more than 140 witnesses many people would know someone involved in the case and have to stand down.
However, days before the trial the defendants elected to go through the process with a judge-alone and the jury plans were scrapped.
There were other hitches along the way too. From early on the entire Crown prosecution team in Christchurch recused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest - their office is metres from the bar in question which served coffee in the mornings and was a pit stop for many of the team.
The judge who was initially overseeing the case was also unavailable when the trial date finally came so Judge Paul Mabey was shipped in from Tauranga to take over.
With a jury the case was scheduled for three to four months - more if Covid struck any key courtroom players and adjournment were needed.
But with Judge Mabey things moved more swiftly and all the evidence was heard by April 3.
He then took several weeks to consider his verdicts, delivering them on April 21.
The two convicted rapists have been remanded in custody until sentencing.
Their appeal against Judge Mabey’s lifting of their name suppression will be heard on May 16.
If it’s an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you’ve ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone contact the Safe to Talk confidential crisis helpline on:
Alternatively, contact your local police station - click here for a list.
If you have been abused, remember it’s not your fault.
Could Air NZ be following a previous path in finding its new CEO?