Child sex offending was ‘utterly brazen’
A judge must decide a woman’s responsibility for ‘‘utterly brazen’’ offending against children with her former partner.
Laken Maree Rose says she thought Andrew Alan Williams would kill her if she did not go along with it, but the Crown says she should not be believed.
Rose, 31, is on trial in the High Court at Hamilton and lawyers submitted their closing arguments yesterday.
Rose and Williams are accused of abusing seven girls, aged 3 to 14 years old, and were arrested in May 2019.
Videos of the offending were their downfall, Crown prosecutor Anna Pollett said.
Some offending happened in a caravan in a Bay of Plenty naturist park and another time Williams offended in a house with trusted adults nearby.
That was ‘‘utterly brazen’’ and unbelievable, Justice Matthew Muir said.
Dealing with the case had involved viewing disturbing images, he said, and after the verdict he was hoping to ‘‘press the erase button’’.
Williams, 53, admitted all his charges on the first day of the trial. Rose pleaded guilty to 10 charges and is being tried on another 50.
She says a violent and controlling Williams threatened to kill her if she did not comply and to kill himself if she left him.
‘‘My client’s case is, actually, I did not want to be there filming it at all. I had to,’’ defence counsel Philip Morgan QC said.
But Pollett argued that the judge should disregard Rose’s version of events, as evidence showed she could not be believed.
Williams and Rose lived in Cambridge, and allegedly offended in Waikato, Palmerston North, Dannevirke and Bay of Plenty between 2014 and 2019.
They began living together weeks after meeting at the Horse of the Year show in 2009, when she was 19 and he 42.
The Crown says they wanted to groom young girls ‘‘to the point where they would engage in sexual acts with them both’’.
Rose admitted to lying in police statements, Pollett said, and claims she was unwilling contradict evidence including messages between her and Williams.
It’s hard to believe Rose thought Williams would only take photos of girls when she had previously seen him abuse others, Pollett said.
And she challenged the defence of compulsion, saying Rose did not stop offending even while she and Williams were in different cities.
But Morgan QC said Rose was simply ‘‘there because that was what [Williams] decreed’’.
‘‘I do remind your honour of her evidence that the bulk of the text messaging was . . . this is what he wanted, this is what I will say.’’
Rose thought Williams wanted sexual pictures of children, not more, Morgan QC said.
‘‘Really, could it be anticipated as a probable consequence of that that Mr Williams would go on to do what he did?’’
The argument was made because the law says people who plan to commit a crime together have responsibility for any offending the other person does if it’s a probable consequence of reaching their shared goal.
It’s not enough to say Rose knew Williams liked young girls or naked photos of them, Morgan QC said.
‘‘That means every time he gets near one and a sexual crime occurs, my client’s criminally responsible for it.’’
It seems Williams was particularly manipulative, Morgan QC said, and Rose was more vulnerable to it because of two disorders – PTSD and dependent personality disorder.
The defence is also arguing consent for acts involving one of the older complainants.
Justice Muir said he hoped to give a verdict on the case before Christmas.