“I just told her to go,” the woman said, explaining that Epati was leaving the ship at that point for shore leave.
Hours later, as Epati returned to the ship from a nearby bar, she was described as swaying and stumbling up the gangplank — so much so that on-duty service members were sent down to assist her. Testifying on her own behalf yesterday, Epati acknowledged rejecting the help, joking to those around her: “I’m not a pussy. I’ve got balls.”
But her second accuser said she actually said, “I’ve got balls, like these,” as she reached towards his crotch and grabbed “quite forcefully”.
Epati told the courtroom yesterday that she immediately apologised, having accidentally grazed the superior officer’s upper thigh while gesticulating wildly due to her intoxication. She did not grab at him and had no intention to touch him at all, she said.
“I think he got quite embarrassed,” she testified, describing the officer as having turned red as others around her laughed. She apologised repeatedly, she said, because she didn’t want to get in trouble for drinking — not because she had done anything indecent.
A third accuser said she was talking with Epati in the ship’s junior rates’ mess a short time later, as Epati tried to explain how she was in trouble. While explaining, Epati demonstrated what occurred by grabbing the woman’s genital area, the accuser testified this week.
Epati denied ever touching either of the female shipmates. Defence lawyer Matthew Hague suggested the first woman was likely mistaken about who touched her buttocks, and the other woman — a close friend of the first accuser — simply wasn’t telling the truth, perhaps in solidarity.
Even if the panel found Epati to have touched the first woman’s buttocks, it shouldn’t amount to the very serious charge of indecent assault, Hague argued.
Crown prosecutor Sam McMullan said it would have been a remarkable coincidence if all three accusers misinterpreted what happened to them. A conspiracy to lay false charges also didn’t make sense, he argued.
He acknowledged that the first accuser didn’t initially consider filing a complaint against Epati because she didn’t see what happened as a “big deal”. But her initial impression of the incident shouldn’t matter when considering the facts, he said.
“That doesn’t lessen what happened,” he said.
The military member panel appeared, however, to disagree, acquitting Epati of that charge only.
In the subsequent sentencing phase of the court-martial, Epati was described as someone who joined the navy in 2016, working in a catering and hospitality role after years in the army. She had no prior convictions and had earned three service medals.
“She’s a great aunty — hard-working, caring, loving — and the only one who’s graduated in her immediate family,” said Fuataina Tovia, her cousin.
As Epati looked down into her lap, Tovia went on to describe her as the “bread and butter” of the family — supporting her parents in New Zealand and her grandparents in Samoa with the money she previously earned from the military and her new civilian job.
“Ever since she’s been in the military, the navy, we’re all so proud of her,” the witness said, adding that today’s convictions now “bring shame”, especially for her parents. “It’s not a good look, especially if you’re female.”
After the testimony, prosecutors pointed to Operation Respect, launched in 2016 as “a long-term commitment to eliminate harmful sexual behaviours” from the New Zealand military. McMullan sought a sentence of one to two weeks in a South Island military detention centre, noting the need for denunciation. A dishonourable discharge, which would usually serve the same purpose, wasn’t an available punishment because she had already left the service, he said.
But the defence said that would be unnecessarily punitive, possibly resulting in the loss of her current employment.
“It’s at the lower end of the spectrum,” Hague said of the offending, pointing out that his client had no history of predatory behaviour and there was no suggestion of sexual gratification regarding the inappropriate touches.
Such circumstances would never result in a custodial sentence in civilian court, he argued, suggesting that a severe reprimand was more appropriate accompanied, perhaps, by a note from the panel that they would have dismissed her as well had she still been a service member.
Judge MacKenzie agreed Epati would have been dismissed had that option been available.
“Deterrence is a very important sentencing principle, especially in court martial cases,” she said. “This type of sexual behaviour has no place in a modern military.”
But she said a custodial sentence didn’t fit the circumstances. She instead ordered a $2000 emotional harm payment, to be split among the two victims, along with the formal reprimand.
“Your behaviour fell well below the expected standards,” she said. “You have brought the New Zealand Defence Force and yourself into disrepute.”
