Laken Maree Rose, 31, pictured during her trial in the High Court at Hamilton last month. Photo / Mike Scott
A 31-year-old Cambridge woman found guilty of 45 charges relating to sexual offending against children gave cohesive but mantra-like evidence, the judge deciding her fate found.
Justice Matthew Muir this morning released his 300-page reserved decision in relation to whether Laken Maree Rose was guilty of any of the 50 charges she denied.
Rose had earlier admitted 10 charges, but denied the rest and was put on trial over a two week period in the High Court at Hamilton last month.
Her former partner and co-offender, Andrew Alan Williams, had prior to trial admitted all the charges laid against him and was convicted and remanded in custody.
Rose's charges included sexual violation, indecently assaulting children under 12, making objectionable publications, possessing objectionable material and inducing young persons to commit indecent acts.
They related to four girls aged between 3 and 13 at various locations including Palmerston North, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty between January 1, 2015, and March 10, 2019.
She admitted nine charges of inducing a young person to commit an indecent act, in relation to the 14-year-old complainant. She also admitted a charge of knowingly making an objectionable publication, being a video recording showing the sexual exploitation of a girl between ages 13 and 14.
In deciphering her guilt over the abetting charges, Justice Muir found that Rose just being at a scene did not make her a person liable for an office.
However, if that person was intentionally giving encouragement that would be enough for someone to be guilty of abetting.
ROSE'S CREDIBILITY
The judge said Rose gave her evidence in a "coherent way with no obvious disorder of
thought".
However, her answers were "almost to the point of it being a mantra" as she repeatedly spoke of being threatened, beaten, strangled to unconsciousness or that her family or animals had likewise been threatened.
Justice Muir said he accepted there were instances of domestic violence in the relationship and as Waikato DHB's Dr Dean testified she felt "generally a fear of him".
"My assessment is that the relationship developed well beyond the point where Ms Rose offended only in response to direct threats of immediate harm."
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The judge found there was limited evidence of domestic abuse.
She had never mentioned any abuse to a friend of 10 years, Jackie Jermyn, who was a detective in the CIB Child Protection Team based in Hamilton.
Jermyn gave evidence that she "never suspected any physical abuse or anything like that, and [Ms Rose] never implied that there was anything like that".
And in the video clips depicting the abuse on the various victims, Rose never came across fearful; instead more "playful".
She did not see any evidence of physical abuse, including bruising, on her.
There was also no evidence of threats of harm in any of the "more than 1000" text messages reviewed by the judge, even when Williams was "really pissed".
"To the contrary, the overwhelming impression from the constant text messaging which featured throughout the relationship, is of an intensely loving bond, with Ms Rose often addressing Mr Williams as "babe" and with the couple consistently professing their love for each other."
He also dismissed Rose's evidence that she never obtained any element of sexual gratification from Williams' offending.
Texts showed that Rose had a "significant sexual interest" in Williams' relationships with the victims.
"There are simply too many references in the text record to Ms Rose becoming sexually aroused as a result of discussions."
He concluded that her responses came to be conditioned by the environment in which she lived.
He also dismissed her evidence that she was surprised to see Williams at the Palmerston North motel where she'd gone for a "girl's weekend", as it was Williams who booked the motel room.
Williams had also repeatedly expressed a sexual interest in the young victim.
NOT GUILTY
Justice Muir found Rose not guilty on five charges.
On a charge of being a party to Williams' sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection on a 5-year-old victim at a caravan park in January 2019.
Despite finding her guilty on other charges of sexual offending, Justice Muir said Rose wasn't depicted in the video during this particular act and therefore he had to take into account that she wasn't in the caravan at the time.
"Effectively it would be to hold Ms Rose liable for something akin to having created an "environment" in which offending might happen behind her back because children were happy to be in the company of one, other or both of them. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was the common intention of Ms Rose and Mr Williams."
On two other unlawful sexual connection charges in relation to a 13-year-old, who refused to give evidence, Justice Muir said they sat "right on the cusp".
But he said he had to take into account her age and the fact she was "clearly aware that filming was occurring", the victim was happy to co-operate and that Williams was the intended recipient of the filming being done by Rose.
"Had the complainant been 12 months younger or 12 months older the same difficulties would likely not have arisen. But in saying that I am implicitly recognising that the seeds of reasonable doubt may exist."
As for his reasonings behind the possession of objectionable material verdicts, Justice Muir said he was satisfied that he had enough reasonable doubt to believe Rose's testimony that she wasn't in possession of the computer with those images on it.
On another representative charge, he accepted Rose's defence that she didn't know the passcode to the Apple Mac and that she had been told not to go on there.