A lawyer has slammed the evidence of one of the women at the centre of an historical rape trial as "rubbish".

Lawyer Wayne McKean said the complainant gave "way too much" detail about alleged rapes and indecent assaults said to have happened nearly 60 years ago.

The evidence was given in a jury trial for Raymond Bradley, a 71-year-old man charged with raping and indecently assaulting two girls in Porirua in the 60s and early 70s, both of whom were aged under 12 during some of the alleged offending.

READ MORE: Trial on historical rape charges from the 60s begins in Wellington
Historical rape trial: Raymond Bradley allegedly confessed crimes to son
Historical rape trial: Complainant describes terror

Advertisement

The trial began in the Wellington District Court last week and the lawyers are now delivering closing addresses to the jury of seven men and four women. One juror had to be discharged today due to illness.

This is a 7 or 8 year old girl who would have no understanding of what was happening to her, yet she claims to remember all of that when recalling it after all this time, 60 years later. Rubbish.

McKean said none of the charges relating to the first complainant were accepted, and said while Bradley did have sex with the second complainant, it was consensual.

In his closing, he took aim at the first complainant's evidence, in which she described in detail bringing a cup of tea to Bradley while he studied at a desk.

Details included remembering seeing the photos and writing in his books and trying not to spill the tea, to the type of underwear she was wearing and the feeling of his hands as he touched her.

"This is a 7 or 8 year old girl who would have no understanding of what was happening to her, yet she claims to remember all of that when recalling it after all this time, 60 years later. Rubbish. No way is that possible, I don't care how good her memory is, that's not possible. It's a big signpost pointing away from her version.

"She gets in the video interview and within a few moments says this: 'I don't actually remember much about any events in my life,'" McKean reminded the jury.

He also pointed out how the woman said something different in her video interview with police to what she told her husband about the alleged incidents.

"What she tells her husband doesn't bear any resemblance to what she said in the video on any measure."

Advertisement
Her own evidence is, before sex, he asks for permission. 'Can I climb into bed? Can I lie with you?' This rapist asks for permission and she doesn't reply.

McKean also criticised how long it took for the woman to go to police with her allegations.

"Young people may not complain straight away. It's not unusual to wait many years for a young person to say what happened, but when they finally do have understanding, that's when we would expect them to go to the police.

"When she tells her husband, she's got understanding. When she turns 50 and she finds out about [the other complainant], she's got understanding. 16 years after that she still hasn't gone to the police and she only goes to the police the day [the other complainant] goes to the police."

McKean went on to argue incidents of alleged rape with the second complainant were actually consensual, and if the woman hadn't wanted it she only had to say no.

At the age of 17 she was living away from home, and had already experimented with drugs and been pregnant, he said.

"A 17-year-old girl like that knows how to say no.

"Her own evidence is, before sex, he asks for permission. 'Can I climb into bed? Can I lie with you?' This rapist asks for permission and she doesn't reply. 'Can I cuddle you,' he asks. She doesn't reply. These are her words. 'Can I snuggle into you?' She doesn't reply. She doesn't say boo."

McKean said at the time, the woman "wanted it to happen", or at least Bradley would have had an "honest belief" that she wanted it.

He also said when Bradley allegedly confessed to the crimes in a heated phone conversation with his son, he was actually only confessing to consensual sex with the second complainant.

The jury is expected to begin deliberating tomorrow.