Historic DNA rape trial: Woman has waited 31 years for justice, jury told

Chris Budgen while standing trial in the Rotorua District Court for an allegation of an historic rape. Photo / Mead Norton

WARNING: This story contains content that may be upsetting to some people

A woman who says she was raped by a man - who was later identified as a top teen rugby player - in 1991 has no motive to lie, is credible and has waited 31 years for justice.

That’s what Crown prosecutor Anna McConachy has told a Rotorua District Court jury tasked with deciding whether Chris Budgen is guilty of raping a Rotorua woman on September 15, 1991.

McConachy told the jury during her closing arguments this morning the woman did not have consensual sex with Budgen at the Spa Lodge on Amohau St as Budgen claimed.

The woman told the jury during her evidence on Monday a man approached her from behind as she walked along Amohau St after 2.20am, put his right hand over her mouth, dragged her down an alleyway and raped her against a concrete wall.

Forensic experts contacted police in October 2012 to advise scientific advances meant they could get DNA from clothing garments held by police as part of the investigation.

It took several years but detectives traced the DNA to Budgen’s family. Budgen was found living in Wales and voluntarily gave a DNA sample in 2015. He was charged after his sample was discovered a match.

Budgen, who was from Ngaruawahia, was 18 in 1991 and was in Rotorua on the night in question having played for an U19 representative side in a curtain raiser to an NPC match.

McConachy said the woman was picked up by then police officer Eric Grace about 4.20am and was visibly distressed.

He said in evidence she was “hugging the door” to keep her distance from him. The woman said during her evidence she didn’t tell Grace what had happened because she was in shock.

But when she got home, she rang Rape Crisis, she rang police, she woke her flatmate in a distressed state and rang police again. She then was interviewed by police, took officers to the scene and underwent an extensive physical examination all before 11am that morning.

McConachy reminded the jury everyone she spoke with that morning - police, Dr Tricia Briscoe and her flatmate - gave similar evidence she was distressed, emotional and crying.

McConachy said if the jury believed the woman was lying, it meant she was a “phenomenal actress who put on a show to everyone she saw that morning”.

She said her evidence was credible and she had no motive to lie as she had no idea who the man was who raped her that morning. Even years later when told it was Budgen, his name meant nothing to her.

She said the jury had heard Budgen lived in Wales at the time of his arrest, was now married and had a family and the jury might have sympathy for him but any feelings needed to be put aside because they needed to judge Budgen only on the evidence.

Defence counsel Sam Wimsett closed his case to the jury saying there were several inconsistencies that flowed.

That included there was a “big hole” in the woman’s timeline from when she said the left Fenton’s Tavern at 2.20am and was picked up by police officer Eric Grace on Ranolf St at 4.20am.

He said while the woman had initially said she was raped by a stranger in the alleyway, left and tried to get a taxi home, she changed her story in evidence saying she must have walked around in a shocked state afterwards because she knew there was a problem with her timeline.

Wimsett said the woman said she was dragged about 50m down an alleyway. Although Budgen was a much bigger and fit man, dragging a woman who weighed 58.5kg for 50m was a “big effort”.

He said there were no scuff marks on her shoes or injuries to her ankles and legs.

Wimsett reminded the jury the woman also claimed she was raped against a concrete wall - something which logistically would be difficult to do while holding his hand across her mouth and pulling her teddy undergarment to one side.

He said Briscoe’s evidence the woman had small pinpoint blood marks on her buttocks and the Crown’s conclusion that was caused from movement up against a concrete wall needed to be considered carefully because there was no damage to the woman’s teddy or black dress.

Wimsett said the fact Budgen couldn’t remember who he was sharing a room with at the Spa Lodge shouldn’t be given added weight because there was confusion over who was in the team when looking at the team photo and the names in the game programme.

He also noted police only contacted some of the Waikato players - not all players - who didn’t know Budgen’s movements the night after the game.

Wimsett also made comment Budgen was not shaken or “caught out on a lie” while giving evidence and during his cross-examination.

Judge Eddie Paul was to sum up the case to the jury of six men and six women and the jury was expected to retire to consider its verdict by mid-afternoon.