Wife is witness in suppressed case

THERE had been ‘‘absolutely nothing’’ in the way her husband behaved that would make her think ‘‘these sorts of allegations would be levelled against him’’, a woman told a district court jury yesterday.

The woman was one of three witnesses called by the defence in the trial of a man facing eight indecencyrelated charges.

The man denies indecently assaulting three young girls and attempting to video two of them without their knowledge.

The offences against two of the complainants are alleged to have happened some time during 2010 and 2011, and the other charge arises from alleged offending against a third girl in 2013.

The trial has been the subject of a wideranging suppression order prohibiting publication of the man’s identity and any information which would identify him, his family or his place of work.

Also suppressed have been the names of all witnesses and the specific details of the eight charges against the man, although their general nature could be reported.

The order was eased late last week to allow an account of the evidence to be reported, provided it did not breach any conditions of the suppression order.

The case goes into its eighth day today when Crown and defence counsel will summarise their respective cases to the jury.

At the close of the Crown case yesterday, the defence called three witnesses. The defendant was not giving evidence himself and was under no obligation to do so, his counsel told the jury.

Two of the witnesses knew the man through his work. One said she had never come across any situation which raised any concerns about his behaviour.

A man who had first met the defendant 16 years ago said he totally supported him and thought he had been ‘‘put through hell’’. He had ‘‘never had an inkling of any problem,’’ about the man’s behaviour, the witness said.

The last of the three defence witnesses was the man’s wife who said the first she knew of the allegations was when police spoke to her husband.

She and her husband were still together, but the time since the allegations surfaced in August 2014 had been ‘‘the hardest 31⁄2 years of my life’’, the woman told the jury.

During their more than 20 years of marriage, there had never been any situation where she had felt uncomfortable about her husband’s behaviour.

‘‘That’s what’s made it so difficult,’’ she said.

A 12yearold girl called by the Crown said the third complainant had told her the defendant touched her indecently at a swimming pool. The incident was mentioned when the complainant was staying the night at her home, the witness said.

The other girl had looked worried and quite scared and ‘‘like she was going to cry — but she didn’t’’.

The complainant told her she was going to tell her mother the next day, ‘‘then she rolled over and went to sleep’’.

Questioned by defence counsel, the girl agreed what the complainant told her ‘‘just came out of the blue’’.

A Crown witness who had almost daily interactions with the defendant through his work, agreed the man was a good friend. She described him as ‘‘valuable, genuine and kind’’ and said she never saw anything about his behaviour which caused her concern.

Asked by Crown counsel if she was aware another of the man’s colleagues had spoken to him about some of his behaviour being unprofessional, the witness said she thought that comment was ‘‘more about his safety’’.

When asked about a comment she made in evidence about the third complainant not telling the truth, the woman said she had never spoken to the girl ‘‘except when she took things that didn’t belong to her’’.

She believed the girl lied ‘‘when she said she hadn’t taken them’’, the woman said.