Corporal Manu Smith guilty of taking intimate images of a woman without consent
Corporal Manu Smith of the Royal New Zealand Infantry appears for the Court Martial proceeding held at the Burnham Military Camp to face three charges of making intimate visual recordings.
Photo:
Pool / Stuff / Kai Schwoerer
A soldier has been found guilty of taking intimate images of a woman without consent.
Corporal Manu Smith was facing a court martial on one count of making intimate visual recordings.
The three-person military panel found Corporal Smith guilty of taking images of the woman without her knowledge or consent.
Corporal Smith was facing three counts under the Armed Forces Discipline Act, but on Tuesday morning Justice Tom Gilbert advised the military panel he had
granted the defence's request to drop two of the charges
.
The two charges were dismissed for legal reasons, because in light of the evidence he ruled that a properly directed panel could not reasonably convict on those charges.
Corporal Smith earlier said the pair had talked about boundaries and they had discussed filming sexual encounters - and said if she had asked him to stop, he would have.
The hearing, at Burnham Military Camp, was earlier told Corporal Smith
laughed about the accusations when he was confronted
.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Two charges against soldier accused of filming sex without consent dropped
Two of the charges against a soldier accused of taking sexual videos without consent have been dropped. Corporal Manu Smith was facing a Court Martial on three counts of making intimate visual recordings under the Armed Forces Discipline Act. In a Court Martial, a military panel made a decision on the accused's guilt or innocence. This morning, Justice Tom Gilbert, who was presiding over the court, advised the military panel that he had granted the defence's request to drop two of the charges. The judge said the two charges were dismissed for legal reasons because, in light of the evidence, he ruled that a properly directed panel could not reasonably convict on those charges. ADVERTISEMENT That afternoon, the accused Corporal Manu Smith gave evidence for the defence. Defence lawyer Timothy Leighton asked Corporal Smith why he had taken out his phone and started recording during sex with the complainant, and if the woman had known he was filming. Corporal Smith said he saw it as a way of expressing their intimacy and that she had seen that he was filming on his phone, and did nothing to indicate she wanted him to stop filming. He said the pair's relationship had been sexual from the start, and they both shared intimate sexual images with each other. Corporal Smith said the pair had talked about boundaries. "Yes, I expected the same respect from her that she did with me, in terms of sharing content with a third party or anybody outside. "...It was a circle of trust, it should have been. I don't want images of me shared with her girlfriends, nor would she want me to share intimate images of her." ADVERTISEMENT Where to get help for sexual violence. (Source: 1News) He said the pair had discussed filming sexual encounters, while discussing their sexual likes and dislikes, and he believed she was open to it. Corporal Smith said he believed he did have consent to record the sexual encounter which was the subject of the complaint, and he said if she had asked him to stop he would have. The prosecution's captain John Whitcombe asked Corporal Smith about the nature of his relationship with the complainant and whether she had reason to assume it was a exclusive relationship. Corporal Smith said the nature of their relationship was not discussed, but he saw it as non-exclusive and he believed she did too. Captain John Whitcombe challenged Corporal Smith's assertion that the woman had consented to the sex being filmed, asking if there was ever an express discussion about him filming on the day in question. Corporal Smith said they had talked about it in a light-hearted, jovial way. ADVERTISEMENT "There was no black and white, no written agreement," he told the court. The defence and prosecution will give their closing addresses this afternoon.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Nelson property owner jailed for 20 months after 'kidnapping' meter reader
By Tracy Neal, Open Justice reporter of Paul Hogarty took the meter reader's car keys. Photo: 123RF A power company meter reader "kidnapped" by an aggressive property owner says the event has "projected a darkness on her everyday life". The woman, in her 60s, was left terrified by the ordeal that occurred at a rural property near Nelson where she arrived to read the meter in June 2023. She was confronted by the angry owner, Paul Hogarty, who took her car keys, which meant she was unable to leave the site. While it was not heard in Nelson District Court how he managed to get the woman's keys, the court was told she was stuck in her car at the property for about 40 minutes as a result. During that time, Hogarty had refused to give them back and kept making demands of her in a threatening and intimidating manner. Today, Hogarty was sentenced to 20 months in prison on charges he denied, including kidnapping, after a jury found him guilty in January this year. He represented himself at the trial with help from a court-appointed counsel and was also found guilty of unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle, intimidation and resisting police. The meter reader had gone to Hogarty's property on the afternoon of June 21. It was a job she had done for many years, Judge Jo Rielly said. After being threatened by Hogarty and having her keys taken off her, she remained in her vehicle because she was afraid of what might happen if she got out. "The words you used to attack and intimidate her traumatised her," Judge Rielly said. The woman told Hogarty she was calling the police but this did not appear to concern him. Judge Rielly described him as someone with "very entrenched personal beliefs about the rights of people in society". When the police arrived, Hogarty, a man in his 70s, then resisted being arrested. "It was abundantly clear that the events were a great surprise to her and caused extreme distress," Judge Rielly said. "She had no way of knowing what would happen to her." Judge Rielly said the victim now suffered extreme anxiety, and felt that Hogarty had taken away her right to feel safe. She now dreaded going to work and had suffered financially as a result. Reading from the woman's victim impact statement, Judge Rielly said the victim wanted Hogarty to know, and believe, that what he had done was unacceptable. Judge Rielly said that some of what Hogarty said at his trial implied that he regretted his actions, even though he had not expressed that directly. She agreed with the Crown on a two-year prison starting point on the lead charge of kidnapping. Hogarty was granted a four-month credit for his personal circumstances, which included a lack of any previous convictions, resulting in a sentence of 20 months in prison. He was granted leave to apply for a substituted sentence of home detention if he chose to put forward an address. Judge Rielly said it was sad she had little choice but to sentence a man of Hogarty's age to a term of imprisonment because he failed to co-operate with the court process. She said the Crown had made it clear early on that it was not opposed to an alternative sentence, and that an electronically monitored sentence would sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offending. Judge Rielly said that had always been her preference. However, Hogarty had made it clear on "more than one occasion" that he would not provide an address. "I have tried to reason with you about that but you have maintained throughout that you do not consent to providing an address so it leaves me no alternative but to sentence you to 20 months in prison," Judge Rielly said. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Concern Mark Lundy parole board condition impinges on freedom of speech
Mark Lundy Photo: RNZ Mark Lundy hasn't said or written a word publicly since he was released from prison early last month. That's because the man twice convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in Palmerston North in August 2000 cannot speak to the media, post on social media or blog about his case. Given he proclaims his innocence, there is concern this Parole Board condition impinges on his right to freedom of speech. He's on a life sentence, so potentially could be subjected to conditions for decades. When the Parole Board raised the possibility of banning Lundy from giving media interviews , his response was clear: "I'd welcome it with open arms," he told board members. Mark Lundy was released from prison last month. Photo: RNZ / Daniel Jones He said when he was on bail ahead of his 2015 retrial, reporters swarmed his street and accosted him. Private investigator Tim McKinnel said the parole condition not to speak publicly took away a person's most important tool - their own voice. "I think these conditions that gag or muzzle prisoners who come out of prison, who are maintaining their innocence, are really problematic," he said. "I think there is a real risk that comes from preventing people from speaking out on their own behalf." Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. That it was the board raising the matter with Lundy, rather than something he brought up, was concerning. "I think that's quite different than having that question put to them by the parole board: 'We are contemplating a condition where you cannot speak publicly about your case, what do you think about that?' "In the context of a parole hearing, you're going to be a pretty brave prisoner to push back on the Parole Board against those types of questions or scenarios." Gail Maney was acquitted for her role in Deane Fuller-Sandys' death. Photo: Jason Dorday / Stuff In some wrongful conviction cases, such as Gail Maney , her public advocacy played a huge role in proving she was not involved in killing Deane Fuller-Sandys in the late 1980s, McKinnel said. "Look at the history of wrongful conviction cases in New Zealand. There is scarcely a case when the media haven't played a fundamentally important role in exposing those miscarriages of justice. "If you take away the voice of the prisoner in arguing for themselves, I think you're at risk of preventing some of these cases emerging." McKinnel is known for his work in helping expose Teina Pora 's wrongful conviction for killing Susan Burdett. Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Pora was also banned from talking to media when on parole before his conviction was quashed. A progress parole hearing heard he was grateful to live without media intrusion. In a statement, the Parole Board said it had on rare occasions imposed media restrictions when granting parole. It did so in Lundy's case to protect him, after he expressed concerns about media interest in him, and to take into account victims' concerns about news reports from when he was on bail awaiting retrial. Media law expert Steven Price said the restriction on Lundy was wide ranging. "It's not just that he can't speak to the media, he can't go on social media either, and he can't go on webpages his parole officer says he can't go on. "They're pretty wide restrictions and they certainly affect his freedom of speech." The Parole Board could impose restrictions for reasons such as reducing the chance of reoffending, but it couldn't be more restrictive than necessary. Photo: Supplied Price agreed with McKinnel that people up for parole, such as Lundy, were likely to agree with any condition the board suggested. "[Lundy's] been convicted twice of murder in extremely controversial circumstances and he can't talk about that to the media. We can't ask him about that. "We can't ask him about his experiences in prison. He can't even go on social media and join a Facebook group to support social media or the All Blacks." Price said the board should have tailored restrictions on Lundy's speech to limit what would genuinely be harmful, but he acknowledged it's a difficult situation. Koi Tū research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis said he hoped the Parole Board would review Lundy's restriction at some point, given its implications for free speech. "It's the wider principle that I think as a society we need to safeguard. The rights under the Bill of Rights Act were hard won, hard fought for, and need to be protected." Media had a right to be concerned at such conditions, Ellis said. The Parole Board noted that in its decision, it said the following: "On balance, this board is satisfied that Mr Lundy will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole on strict conditions designed to address his risk as well as assist in his reintegration and address victim concerns." Although Lundy's parole conditions were imposed for life, he could apply to have his restrictions varied at any time, and he would have a monitoring hearing to check on his progress in October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
