Barman who raped Australian tourist loses appeal

A barman who raped an Australian tourist as she travelled the West Coast has unsuccessfully attempted to have his conviction quashed.

Alexander Bayden Taylor was found guilty of sexual violation by rape by a jury in the Greymouth District Court in July last year. He was sentenced to five years and one month in prison in December.

Taylor met the victim and her friend at a bar he worked at in February 2019, the appeal judgment said.

When the bar closed, a small group including Taylor, the victim and her friend went to a staff house nearby to continue drinking and dancing. Taylor showed more interest in the victim than vice versa, it said.

The victim’s friend paired up with another occupant of the house and the victim went to sleep alone in a spare bedroom.

Taylor then entered the bedroom without invitation and the victim woke to him raping her.

The jury did not accept that the woman gave consent.

Taylor appealed his conviction on the grounds that during the trial Judge Stephen O’Driscoll failed to accurately sum up levels of the intoxication to the jury, wrongly declined an application to admit hearsay evidence, and wrongly declined to exclude excerpts from Taylor’s interview with police.

In the trial, Taylor claimed the victim was too drunk to recall she gave consent.

The inconsistencies highlighted – mostly around timing and what alcohol was being consumed – by the defence were not inconsistencies about the offending itself or sexual contact between the complainant and Taylor, the appeal judgment said.

The judge summarised the cases for the Crown and the defence in some detail and highlighted the inconsistencies relied upon by the defence, it said. Witness statements omitted from the trial could have been included but had no bearing on the end result, the appeal found.

Taylor also appealed on grounds that the fact he smoked cannabis on the night in question was included in evidence as part of his police interview. His application to exclude this was declined.

‘‘We are of the view that the judge was not wrong in refusing to exclude evidence of Mr Taylor’s cannabis consumption,’’ the appeal judgment stated.

‘‘We agree with the Crown that the evidence was never used in a way that went beyond its probative value, and it was the subject of specific direction by the judge which mitigated any unfairly prejudicial effect it might otherwise have had. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.’’

‘‘We are of the view that the judge was not wrong in refusing to exclude evidence of Mr Taylor’s cannabis consumption.’’ Appeal judgment