Sex abuse hush money claims

Blackmail by two alleged victims of child sex abuse has surfaced at a trial where a West Coast man faces 24 charges.

The 45-year-old man denies the charges and the defence will say that all the allegations of sexual abuse over eight years are all lies, according to the prosecution.

But the Crown told the Christchurch District Court jury that under New Zealand law, it was still blackmail if the allegations were true and it has gone ahead with the trial seven years after the complaints came to light.

In the meantime, the two women who carried out the $25,000 blackmail and signed a ‘‘confidentiality agreement’’, have been dealt with by the courts after admitting those charges. They are now being called to give evidence at the man’s child sex abuse trial.

Christchurch District Court Judge Brian Callaghan told the jury as the trial began that it was expected to take three weeks, with three complainants giving evidence among the 16 Crown witnesses.

The alleged victims are now women in their 20s. They were aged between seven and 16 years when the Crown says the offending occurred at several West Coast locations and in Christchurch. The women’s names are suppressed, and the man has interim suppression.

He denies six charges of rape and one of attempted rape, seven of indecent assault, seven of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, one of attempted unlawful sexual connection, and two of inducing girls to do an indecent act.

The blackmail allegation surfaced even before Crown prosecutor Karyn South made her opening address to the jury, when the trial judge raised the issue in his introductory remarks.

He said the trial would be told that two of the complainants blackmailed the man over what they said he had done to them years before, and he had paid $15,000 into one of their bank accounts, and $10,000 into the other. ‘‘The Crown says these payments can be taken into account as a factor in deciding whether or not all of the charges are proved,’’ the judge said.

The defence said it was ‘‘perfectly plausible’’ for a person to pay to avoid unwelcome or unpleasant consequences.