Herald NOW: Daily News Update: June 11 2025.
Video / Herald NOW
Corporal Manu Anthony Smith was found guilty of filming a woman during sex without her consent.
Judge Tom Gilbert dismissed two other charges, leaving the panel to decide on one charge.
Smith’s commanding officer supported him, but the Crown argued for his dismissal from the military.
Smith’s sentence will be handed down tomorrow.
A Christchurch soldier found guilty of filming a woman during sex without her consent will find out tomorrow if he will be dismissed from the military.
At a court martial this week, Corporal Manu Anthony Smith was found guilty of “intentionally or recklessly” making an intimate visual recording ofa woman
The 41-year-old had been accused of using his cellphone to film a woman without her knowledge or consent while they were engaging in sexual activity.
While he admitted making the recording, Smith denied the charge, claiming that the woman either consented or that he genuinely believed she was consenting at the time.
That meant the panel only had to decide on one charge, relating to one woman.
This morning, Judge Gilbert explained how they should go about reaching a unanimous verdict and summed up the main points of the Crown and defence cases before sending them out to begin deliberating.
The three - a woman and two men - retired at 9.46am and took just under two hours to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.
On hearing the decision, a visibly upset Smith turned to his family who have been in court to support him this week. They too looked distressed by the verdict.
The victim impact statement
After an adjournment to allow the Crown and defence time to prepare, Judge Gilbert brought Smith back into court for sentencing.
The sentencing process began with the victim reading an impact statement to the court.
“Before your offending I was carefree, independent and I had my life together,” she said.
“I wish I had never met you…You were meant to be a model citizen and you did this? What you did was disgusting and unforgivable.”
Corporal Manu Smith has been found guilty of filming a woman without her consent during sex. Photo Kai Schwoerer / Pool
The woman said she felt “dread” when she heard Smith’s name or saw a vehicle similar to his.
She felt shame and embarrassment over being filmed without knowing, and for having to speak about her sexual choices in front of a courtroom full of strangers.
“I feel like a weight has been lifted… I hope that no one is treated like this by you ever again.
“I am taking my power back, and you no longer have power over me.”
Dismiss or retain?
Crown prosecutor Captain John Whitcombe said Smith’s offending was more serious than it would have been if he was not in the army.
“It is more serious in a military context because of the inherent undermining of New Zealand Defence Force values and ethos,” he said.
“The offending goes directly in the face of operational respect.”
The Burnham Military Camp, near Christchurch. Photo: RNZ / Jonathan Mitchell
Whitcombe said Smith had a conviction for common assault more than 10 years ago and other charges that did not appear on his record including one for “ill treatment of subordinates”.
He said an appropriate sentence would be Smith’s dismissal from the military.
He said if NZDF personnel were retained after sexual offending it may put others off reporting unwanted sexual behaviour.
Whitcombe submitted it was not “tolerable” and “untenable” for Smith to remain in service.
What he did was “fundamentally against the ethos and core values of the NZDF” and was a “fundamental breach of trust”.
“This type of behaviour demonstrates Corporal Smith is unfit to command. I accept he was not on duty at the time, but the offending demonstrates an inherent defect in his character and judgement and his behaviour doesn’t set an appropriate example for subordinates,” he said.
Defence lawyer Matthew Hague said the only connection to the NZDF this case had was the fact Smith was a soldier.
The offence did not happen in a barracks or on deployment, nor did it involve other military personnel. While he was not minimising Smith’s crime, he implored those deciding his fate to keep that in mind.
Hague said a conviction and the publicity of the case carried a significant consequence in and of itself. A mitigating feature was the more than five years Smith “suffered” waiting for trial.
Corporal Manu Smith had denied any offending. Photo / Pool
He served overseas, including in Afghanistan, and “represented New Zealand to a high standard”.
He told the judge and panel that the conviction and a reprimand were a clear signal Smith had been held accountable and achieved the principles of sentencing.
“It is a very serious outcome... and in itself has promoted a sense of responsibility,” he said.
“This has been denounced publicly and denounced seriously... it has put anyone on notice that it’s not acceptable and it’s criminal. Nothing more needs to be done.
“If you think he needs something more, you’ve got options... short of dismissal (including) a severe reprimand or a fine. But I am suggesting that a conviction and reprimand is appropriate.”
Smith’s military history
Smith’s Commanding Officer - who cannot be named - told the court that Smith had been in the army for more than 17 years and was a trusted and reliable officer.
He said after being charged, Smith continued “working hard to advance his career” and had received a leadership award.
“He has conducted himself well,” said the CO, who has known Smith for 15 years.
“Corporal Smith has been reported as being an enthusiastic, self-motivated, diligent (soldier) who demonstrates a willingness to learn and grow in confidence,” he said.
“I find it hard to reconcile the offence he has been found guilty of in this case and the Corporal Smith discussed this week, with the soldier and the man that I have known for many years.
“I am disappointed... but I do see a future for him in our organisation... we as his military family would not leave him behind, we would push him forward... to be the man he is capable of being,” he said.
“With the right management and support, he would still add value to our organisation. I believe in his capacity to live the values of the NZDF.”
If Smith were to stay in the military, the commanding officer said his unit would automatically review his retention and service, and he would be placed on a warning for up to 12 months.
“There will be conditions attached to this formal warning which if breached, would cause us to reconsider,” he said.
“Corporal Smith has a long road to travel ahead, but I do feel with support and guidance, he will develop the necessary skills to navigate his personal life and return to being the man that I’ve known in a professional context.”
Smith filmed the woman during sex - without her knowledge - and later sent her the footage via social media. Photo / File
The defence called a number of other army personnel to explain to the court how Smith could successfully be “performance managed” and monitored to ensure he met the standard imposed by the NZDF.
They all indicated measures could be put in place to protect other officers, particularly women, and make sure Smith followed the rules and behaved appropriately.
There had been other offending soldiers dealt with this way - some who have continued their service successfully and others who had eventually been dismissed for failing to abide by their retention conditions.
The defence also called Smith’s sisters to speak on his behalf.
The first said Smith carried a lot of mana in the family, and the conviction impacted them greatly.
“He has always acted with integrity within our whanau... he’s loved, he’s affected, and what affects him affects us. When his mana is diminished, it leaves a huge impact on our whanau,” she said.
“For Manu, being part of the forces is a huge responsibility and a service he enacts with pride. Our whanau has been about service, that’s one of our values. We’d like him to continue to be able to serve... It’s part of our identity.
A court martial is a military court that tries members of the armed forces for violations of military law.
It is a structured legal process, similar to a civilian court, and a decision on guilt or innocence is made by a panel of military members – three in Smith’s case.
If a defendant is found guilty, punishments can include fines, demotions or imprisonment.
“It’s for you to decide what evidence you will accept or reject and what weight you will give it,” the judge had directed the panel before they retired to deliberate.
“You must come to your decision solely upon the evidence put before you in this court.
“The starting point in any trial is the presumption. Corporal Smith is innocent unless and until the Crown case is proved.
“The Crown must prove that Corporal Smith is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There is a very high standard of proof which the Crown will have met only if at the end of this case you are sure that he is guilty.
Corporal Manu Smith at the Court-martial proceedings. Photo Kai Schwoerer / Pool
“A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about Corporal Smith after you have given careful and impartial consideration. In summary, if, after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence, you are sure that he is guilty of the charge, you must find him guilty ... if you are not sure that he is guilty, you must find him not guilty.”
Judge Gilbert said the panel must reach their verdict “uninfluenced by feelings of prejudice or sympathy”.
“You may feel sorry for the women who gave evidence – or indeed, Corporal Smith – who have all had their private lives placed on display.
“Conversely, you might hold negative views about any or all of them. You might, for example, not approve of aspects of their lifestyle or their sexuality.
“You are entitled to those feelings, whatever they might be, but they won’t help you decide whether Corporal Smith is guilty of the charge that he faces.
“From this evidence, you might well have got a dim view of how Corporal Smith was running his private life around 2020. I need to be really clear, though, that this is a court of law ... he is not guilty because he treated women poorly or acted immorally.
“You cannot find him guilty because you don’t like him or you don’t like the way he behaved.”
The Crown vs the defence
The judge reminded the panel that the Crown contended the complainant - while very angry at Smith - was a credible, reliable witness.
In contrast, Crown prosecutor Captain John Whitcombe had said Smith was “evasive” in answering questions about his relationship with the woman and whether he was involved with anyone else during that time.
Prosecutor Captain John Whitcombe. Photo Kai Schwoerer / Pool
His “lack of openness” should “flavour” the panel’s assessment of him, Whitcombe posited.
“The Crown says that the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt and asks you to find Corporal Smith guilty,” the judge said.
“The defence ... say that [the woman] did consent to the recording ... that Corporal Smith’s evidence was credible, that he answered questions forthrightly in an uncomfortable situation and talking about uncomfortable issues.”
The defence said that the complainant had “a strong dislike” for Smith and colluded with other women to exact revenge on him.
“That context of strong dislike and collusion provides the backdrop for this complaint by a woman who expressly stated that she wanted to make [Smith] hurt the same way he hurt her.
“Mr Hague submitted that this must raise real doubts,” said Judge Gilbert.
“He also talked about Corporal Smith’s state of mind ... he commented that consent in relationships isn’t always the subject of explicit discussion.
“One thing can lead to another, and consent can be nonverbal and depend on contextual factors in the relationship. He submits that the background, including the exchange of explicit videos and photos between the pair, is relevant to his state of mind.”
Further, he told the court he and the woman had discussed filming sexual encounters while discussing their sexual likes and dislikes, and he believed she was open to it.
Smith said he believed he had consent to record – and if the woman had asked him to stop, he would have.
“There was no black and white, no written agreement,” he told the court.
“It was a circle of trust, it should have been.”
Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz.
