Cricketer not guilty in rape trial
The jury in the rape trial of a cricket star deliberated for less than an hour before coming back with a not guilty verdict.
Northern Districts all-rounder Scott Christopher Kuggeleijn, 25, faced a single charge of raping a woman in May 2015.
Kuggeleijn family members applauded at the verdict, then several broke down in tears. Scott Kuggeleijn embraced his father and they immediately left the courthouse.
When asked how he was feeling, the cricketer responded only with ‘‘good’’, then indicated he would not be making a statement.
Defence lawyer Phillip Morgan, QC, also declined to comment when leaving the Hamilton District Court.
The jury retired yesterday after Judge David Wilson, QC, gave his
"Consent given reluctantly or later regretted is still consent.''
closing statement.
The prosecution said Kuggeleijn was persistent and didn’t take no for an answer, but the defence said the complainant eventually relented as she did not want to come across as a ‘‘b .... or a tease’’.
‘‘Consent means true consent given by a person that can make a rational decision,’’ Wilson said in his instructions to the jury.
‘‘Consent given reluctantly or later regretted is still consent.
‘‘In order to convict Mr Kuggeleijn, you will have to accept the [Crown’s] evidence without a reasonable doubt.’’
Wilson urged the jury of six women and six men to consider all of the evidence.
It was irrelevant that the defendant was a sports star or that the complainant was an educated young woman, Wilson said.
‘‘You don’t have to accept everything the witness says, you can accept one part and you can have some doubts. It’s important you only consider the evidence you’ve heard during this trial. ‘‘You’re the sole judges of fact.’’ The jury heard from 10 witnesses over the past week, including evidence from the complainant and the defendant.
On Thursday, lawyers for the Crown and the defence gave their closing statements.
In her closing statement, Crown prosecutor Jacinda Foster told the jury the case was not complicated and that the account given by the complainant was at the heart of the Crown’s case
‘‘[Her] intoxication should have no bearing on her credibility or her reliability,’’ Foster said.
‘‘[The defendant] was never entitled to assume that one act of physical intimacy would ultimately lead to an act of sexual intercourse.’’
Defence counsel Morgan said the complainant relented because after two initial refusals to have sex and partaking in foreplay, she could not turn him down.
‘‘She couldn’t turn this man down yet again because she would then be thought of as a b .... or a tease,’’ Morgan said.
‘‘My client respected the complainant’s wishes at night when he could’ve had her so easily when she was drunk,’’ Morgan said.
‘‘That’s not the behaviour of a rapist, is it?’’
‘‘This case demonstrates clearly that she had consented. My client didn’t intend to hurt somebody but he did.’’