NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

District Court of New Zealand
You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> District Court of New Zealand >> 2023 >> [2023] NZDC 14646

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

R v Jaz [2023] NZDC 14646 (26 July 2023)

Last Updated: 24 October 2023

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]


NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO
S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF
WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI ŌTAUTAHI
CRI-2018-009-010207
[2023] NZDC 14646

THE CROWN

v

ROBERTO JAZ DANNY JAZ
[SAM JONES]

Hearing:
7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 February
2023
1, 2, 6 ,7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30
March 2023
3 April 2023
Appearances:
A McRae and L Preston KC for the Crown T Aickin and M Smit for Defendant R Jaz
D Matthews and T Harré for Defendant D Jaz
G Lange and N Pointer for Defendant [Sam Jones]
Judgment:
26 July 2023

THE CROWN v ROBERTO JAZ [2023] NZDC 14646 [26 July 2023]

2023_1464600.jpg


REASONS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P G MABEY KC

Introduction


[1] The Jaz family operated a bar and an adjacent restaurant on Colombo Street in Christchurch. The bar was named Mama Hooch (MH). The restaurant was named Venuti. Roberto and Danny Jaz (the Jaz brothers)1 were actively involved in the management of both establishments. Each held Management Certificates issued by the Liquor Licensing Authority. [Sam Jones] is a [family member] of the Jaz brothers. All three defendants are of Macedonian descent.

[2] In 2018 the police received complaints from two female patrons of MH and Venuti alleging they were drugged and sexually offended against. The complaints were investigated. There was publicity and other complainants came forward.2 Searches were conducted and data was extracted from devices owned by the three defendants. That data included messaging between the defendants and others together with recordings which depicted sexual activity between one or more of the defendants and some of the complainants.

[3] As a result of the enquiry known as “Operation Sinatra” the defendants faced multiple charges spanning a nearly four year period beginning soon after MH opened and which they defended in a Judge-Alone trial before me.

The charges


[4] I summarise the charges by defendant but append to this decision the Crown Charge List (Appendix A) which details the 80 charges laid against all defendants. I was required to deliver verdicts on 53 charges only. The charges requiring verdicts were:

1 A third brother Davide Jaz was involved in the management and operation of Venuti Restaurant but is not charged.

2 Exhibit 1, images 254-265

Roberto Jaz


Charges 20, 21, 22, 26, 35, 43, 48, 50, 52, 56, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80


Danny Jaz



Charges 20, 21, 22, 26, 35, 43, 48, 50, 52, 56, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80


[Sam Jones]3


[5] On 21 April 2023 I delivered verdicts on all charges reserving my reasons. That was necessary as the defendants, plus a further defendant [Dean Smith], were to face trial by jury commencing on 1 May 2023 in relation to a single complainant ([complainant 3]) only. Verdicts in this trial were required before the commencement of the jury trial to enable the Crown to consider its position and, if necessary, make an application and introduce evidence of convictions as propensity evidence in the jury trial.4

3 As will be seen from Appendix B, [Sam Jones] was acquitted on all but one charge. He was convicted only of supplying a minute quantity of MDMA. I recorded my verdict but did not enter a conviction pending [Sam Jones]’s application for discharge without conviction under s 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA). His name was suppressed pending an application for permanent suppression. I granted a discharge without conviction and permanently suppressed his name for the reasons detailed in my ruling of 21 July 2023. I also permanently suppressed the names of his partner and their child, his parents and the name of their business, the names of his brother and his child and the name of [Sam Jones]’s employer. The Crown opposed the application for discharge but did not oppose the applications for suppression orders, choosing to abide the decision of the court.

4 As it turned out a Crown application was unnecessary. The Crown did not pursue some charges which were to be dealt with in the impending jury trial, Roberto Jaz entered a plea to one charge and another was withdrawn with the result that the only person remaining for trial was [Dean Smith]. He elected Judge-Alone trial before me and was acquitted on the single charge he faced. Upon his acquittal I continued interim suppression of name pending an argument for permanent suppression which was granted for the reasons set out in my ruling of 21 July 2023.


[6] The verdicts delivered on 21 April 2023 are detailed in Appendix B. In this reserved judgment I set out my reasons for those verdicts.

[7] In considering the law and facts when determining if the Crown has proved each or any of the charges against each or any of the three defendants I have directed myself on:

What must be proved

Stupefying


[8] Stupefying is charged under s 191 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides:

191 Aggravated wounding or injury

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who with intent—

wounds, maims, disfigures, or causes grievous bodily harm to any person, or stupefies or renders unconscious any person, or by any violent means renders any person incapable of resistance.

(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with any such intent as aforesaid, injures any person.

[9] The section covers a wide range of wounding or injury in which stupefying is included. Stupefaction, in this case, must be for the purpose of committing an imprisonable offence.

[10] The Court of Appeal in R v Sturm had cause to consider the meaning of “to stupefy”. On appeal against a lower court definition based on medical evidence the Court took a different view, noting at [99] that:5

The term “stupefy” is not a foreign word or otherwise of such an esoteric nature as to warrant a departure from the principle that the construction of a statute is a matter of law, not evidence. It has, apparently, a technical meaning in various medical disciplines but it is an ordinary English word which has had currency since at least 1611 ...


[11] I quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal:

[101] The mischief at which s 191 is directed is conduct which is aggravated by specific criminal purposes. The purposes may or may not be achieved; indeed the conduct need not necessarily amount to an attempt. But all of the proscribed conduct is of a kind which does or could seriously interfere with a person’s ability to do something which might impede or prevent the commission of a crime. That much is obvious from the terms of the section.

...


[103] Bearing in mind the matters referred to in para [101], s 191(1) envisages a state in which cognitive or physical attributes have been so affected that the

5 R v Sturm [2005] NZCA 137; [2005] 3 NZLR 252, (2005) 21 CRNZ 627.

subject has been rendered incapable of doing something to impede or prevent an intended crime.


[104] This may be brought about by confusing the mind, or by affecting knowledge or perception, or by paralysing or disconcerting the limbs, or by confusing the senses, as well as by depressing mental function.

...

[108] The availability of modern mind altering drugs which are capable of being used to facilitate crime by interfering with the ability to resist warrants a broader view than that adopted by [the Judge]. The statute should, and by virtue of s 6 Interpretation Act does, apply to these arising circumstances.

...

[112] It is a common aspect of human behaviour that people take recreational drugs, including alcohol for example, in order to experience relaxation or excitation or disinhibition, often for intended sexual gratification. There is no policy reason to restrict the meaning of “stupefy” in order not to criminalise that type of common human behaviour. To administer a drug with that expectation does not necessarily come within the scope of s 191(1). To do so, there must be a criminal intent. In sexual cases the criminal intent would be to carry out behaviour with someone who is not consenting and in respect of whom the offender does not believe there is consent.


[12] Ultimately the Court concluded at [113] that:

... to “stupefy” means to cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder an intended crime. Whether any such interference is really serious is a matter of fact and degree for the jury or other trier of fact to determine, just as it is a jury matter whether, in a case of alleged grievous bodily harm, the bodily injury is really serious.


[13] The Court concluded its judgment by saying at [114]:

... What the Crown is required to prove is that an accused, with any of the intents specified in s 191(1)(a)(b)(c) has deliberately done something which has caused on the mind or nervous system of another an effect which really seriously interferes with that person's mental or physical ability to act in any way which might hinder the intended crime.


[14] Section 191 creates a crime of ulterior intent where the mens rea includes an intention to produce some further consequence beyond the actus reus of the crime in question.6

6 R v Sturm [2007] NZCA 175.


[15] Such crimes are said to require proof of the basic intent corresponding to the actus reus and a further ulterior intent to achieve one of the proscribed purposes.

[16] In its 2007 decision the Court of Appeal addressed proof of intent in context of an allegation of stupefying under s 191 concluding at [52]:

... that it was necessary for the Crown to prove not only an intention to facilitate the commission of a crime (the ulterior intent) but also an intention to stupefy (the basic intent) ... it will suffice to prove the basic intent if the accused was subjectively reckless but recklessness will not suffice for the ulterior intent.


[17] As to proof of the basic intent, the Court noted at [51]:

If there was an intention to sexually violate, coupled with the deliberate administration of a stupefying substance, it is unlikely there would be any issue about the existence of the necessary basic intent.


[18] If, as a matter of fact the basic intent is proved beyond reasonable doubt the Crown must also establish the ulterior intent which, in this case, is to facilitate sexual offending (s 191(1)(a)).

[19] That requires proof that there was an intent to offend against someone who is not consenting, and also in the case of sexual violation, where the defendant does not believe in consent on reasonable grounds.

[20] In its 2005 decision in Sturm, addressing complaints about the summing up on consent, the Court of Appeal noted at [49]:

Whether there was or was not consent is of course ultimately a question for the jury. But where the issue involves complexities such as those in this case, the jury would have been assisted by a direction that it was open to them to convict if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in respect of any particular count:


(a) [the defendant] had administered or provided a drug,

(b) with the intention that it would induce in the complainant receptiveness to engaging in sexual activity with [the defendant],

(c) which [the defendant] knew the complainant would not otherwise have engaged in; and

(d) the complainant did not take the drug voluntarily and with awareness that it was likely to lead to sexual activity with [the defendant].

[21] The Crown must prove:

[22] In my following analysis of the s 191 allegations, where I conclude that the charge of stupefying has been proved, I am indicating that stupefaction, as defined, has been established and that the convicted defendant/s did so with the requisite basic and ulterior intents.

Disabling


[23] Section 197 of the Crimes Act provides:

197 Disabling

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefies or renders unconscious any other person.


[24] Unlike the charge under s 191 there is no secondary or ulterior intent. It is sufficient that there is stupefaction. The charge is complete when intentional or reckless stupefaction is proved.

Sexual Violation


[25] Charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and sexual violation by rape are brought under s 128 of the Crimes Act. What must be established is:

(b) Without the consent of the complainant; and

[26] Consent must be freely given by a person in a position to make a rational decision.

[27] Section 128A of the Crimes Act relevantly provides:

128A Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances

(1) A person does not consent to sexual activity just because he or she does not protest or offer physical resistance to the activity.

....

(4) A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity.

....

(8) This section does not limit the circumstances in which a person does not consent to sexual activity.
(9) For the purposes of this section,—

allows includes acquiesces in, submits to, participates in, and undertakes

sexual activity, in relation to a person, means—

(a) sexual connection with the person; or
(b) the doing on the person of an indecent act that, without the person’s consent, would be an indecent assault of the person.

Indecent assault


[28] Section 135 of the Crimes Act provides:

135 Indecent assault

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who indecently assaults another person.


[29] It must be established that:

Possession of an objectionable publication


[30] Sections 131 and 131A of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 relevantly provide:

131 Offence to possess objectionable publication

(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who, without lawful authority or excuse, has in that person’s possession an objectionable publication.

....

131A Offences relating to possession of objectionable publications and involving knowledge

(1) Every person commits an offence who does any act that constitutes an offence against section 131(1), knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publication is objectionable.


[31] It must be established that:

Making an intimate visual recording


[32] Section 216H of the Crimes Act provides:

216H Prohibition on making intimate visual recording

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who intentionally or recklessly makes an intimate visual recording of another person.


[33] An intimate visual recording is defined in s 216G of the Crimes Act which provides:

216G Intimate visual recording defined

(1) In sections 216H to 216N, intimate visual recording means a visual recording (for example, a photograph, videotape, or digital image) that is made in any medium using any device without the knowledge or consent of the person who is the subject of the recording, and the recording is of—
(2) In section 216H, intimate visual recording includes an intimate visual recording that is made and transmitted in real time without retention or storage in—
[34] It must be established that:

[35] It is necessary also to prove the recording was intentionally or recklessly made. That requires deliberately making a recording which depicts proscribed conduct knowing or being reckless as to the lack of knowledge or consent of the person being filmed. Recklessness means seeing the possibility that the person is not aware of the filming, or is not consenting to it, and going ahead anyway.7

[36] The offences of male assaults a female, attempt to stupefy and offering to supply a Class B controlled drug do not require any elaboration.

Parties


[37] As is evident from the charges which level allegations against co-defendants the Crown relies upon party participation. Section 66 of the Crimes Act provides:

66 Parties to offences

(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
(2) Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a receptive of the prosecution of the common purpose

[38] The Crown pursues its allegations in reliance, principally, on s 66(2).

[39] In Ahsin v R the Supreme Court addressed conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal. The Court summarised the elements which must be proved to establish party participation under s 66(2) as:8

7 X v R [2021] NZCA 331.

8 Ahsin v R [2014] NZSC 153 at [83].


(c) those accused of being parties to that agreement had all agreed to help each other and participate to achieve their common unlawful goal; and

(d) the offence was committed by the principal in the course of pursuing the common purpose, and

(e) the defendant under consideration intended that the offence that occurred was committed or knew it was a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose. This requires foresight of both the physical and mental elements of the essential facts of the offence.

[40] Probable consequence requires that a defendant know that the commission of the offence was a real or substantial risk – could well happen.

[41] It is not necessary to identify the role of individual defendants in the pursuit of the common purpose or to identify the principal. It is sufficient that an offence occurred in pursuit of the common purpose which was intended or was a real or substantial risk of happening.

[42] Mr McRae placed particular emphasis on s 66(2) in advancing his case on the disabling charges. The Jaz brothers were charged together in 19 charges of disabling, alleging that complainants were stupefied by way of an unknown substance administered in their drink. In support of those allegations the Crown relied on s 66(2) submitting that there was a common unlawful purpose formed by Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz to disable patrons of MH in order to increase the party atmosphere of MH. The Crown submitted that [Sam Jones] joined that common purpose at times when he was in Christchurch, he being normally resident in [location 1].

[43] The Crown further submitted that Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz were the principal offenders who carried out and/or oversaw the disabling of complainants as it was they who had control over MH and who had access to free drinks.

[44] Of significance in the analysis of party participation Mr McRae submitted that on the occasions where the Crown is unable to identify the presence of Danny Jaz or Roberto Jaz in relation to a disabling allegation that was immaterial as the evidence established proof of a common intention on a cross-propensity basis.

[45] I did not accept that submission and took the view that the evidence fell well short of establishing that an unlawful common purpose to disable patrons was formed by the Jaz brothers, together or with [Sam Jones]. In terms of the analysis of the Supreme Court in Ahsin the evidence fell short of establishing that there was a shared understanding or agreement between the brothers to pursue an unlawful purpose.

[46] The evidence established that the various complainants in the disabling charges were stupefied but the submission that one of the brothers was the principal offender in circumstances where the evidence proved no more than one or both of them were present at MH was unsupported on the evidence.

[47] When analysing the evidence and assessing the Crown’s submission that the brothers had formed a common intention I acknowledge that a common intention would usually be established by inference from the conduct of the alleged parties and that the mutual intention to pursue an unlawful purpose may arise at the moment of the commission of the offence. The evidence did not prove a common intention and it was not proved that there was a shared understanding or agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose.

[48] I thus approached the disabling charges on the basis that there needed to be a direct link between one or both of the Jaz brothers, or [Sam Jones] where he was charged, as defendants and the stupefaction of an individual complainant. If that link was established, and on the basis that stupefaction was established, a conviction would follow. If not, there must be an acquittal.

[49] As the verdicts set out in Exhibit B reveal, many of the disabling charges were dismissed against both brothers but in some cases one brother only was convicted.

[50] The Crown also relied upon s 66(2) party participation where joint allegations of stupefying were alleged. Those allegations required not only a common purpose to stupefy, but for the purpose of committing an imprisonable offence; in this case sexual offending against a given complainant. I approached those allegations with a similar analysis. Evidence directly linking any defendant to the offending was required.

The evidence


[51] I received evidence from 130 witnesses including 35 whose Formal Written Statements (FWS) were read. Of the 29 complainants who gave evidence some allege stupefying or disabling only but some allege stupefying or disabling together with actual sexual offending.

[52] In relation to many complainants I heard evidence which was admissible under s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to meet challenges to veracity or allegations of recent fabrication.

[53] I record that all complainants have name suppression. Those that allege sexual offending have statutory suppression and pre-trial orders were made suppressing the identity of other complainants who give evidence of stupefying or disabling but who do not allege sexual offending against them.

[54] Pre-trial mode of evidence orders were made permitting the playing of evidential video interviews (EVIs) where appropriate and for all complainants to be screened when giving evidence.9

[55] When summarising the evidence of individual complainants I include reference to all charges that concern them, as originally laid, notwithstanding that some of those charges have been met with guilty pleas. There is a reason for that.

[56] Although sexual allegations, where Danny Jaz was charged alone, have been met with guilty pleas the complainants were required to give evidence in support of the stupefying or disabling charges which remained defended. In giving that evidence it was necessary for the complainants to refer to the sexual allegations, despite the guilty pleas, as those allegations were relevant and admissible in support of the stupefying or disabling charges.

9 For those witnesses who gave an evidential video interview, the interview was played in Court but in the absence of the witness who was viewing their EVI in another room. Transcripts of the EVI were made available to me and counsel but were not produced. It was agreed that the EVI transcripts would be included in the trial transcript as part of the Court record.


[57] All defendants exercised their right not to give evidence but DVD recorded statements made by Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones] were introduced as part of the Crown case.

[58] Roberto Jaz elected to call evidence and I heard from two former employees of Venuti and/or MH. Their evidence will be referred to when I come to analyse the evidence in relation to individual charges.

[59] In addition to the complainants and their supporting witnesses I heard evidence from those involved with the conduct and termination of the enquiry and expert evidence relating to drug usage, extraction of digital data from devices and from Professor Drummer on the physiological and psychological effect of the consumption of drugs.

[60] I also received an agreed exhibit detailing the results of hair sample analysis carried out in a French laboratory. Those results were made available to Professor Drummer to comment upon but, for reasons that will become clear, I do not place any weight on the French hair sample analysis. I consider that the range of variables which must be factored into the analytical results are such that no safe inference can be drawn from those results.

[61] The original Crown witness list included witnesses to establish a chain of evidence for items that were the subject of examination but they were not called as counsel sensibly agreed that chain of evidence was not in issue.

[62] Seventy two exhibits were produced, including five exhibits produced by the defendants. Exhibit 5 is a volume of “Propensity Communications” relied on by the Crown and which details communications involving one or more of the defendants, and often third parties, ruled admissible by the Court of Appeal. The exhibit is organised under separate headings for each defendant referring only to the communications that are admissible against that defendant. However, many of the communications are admissible against more than one defendant.10 In some of the

10 When considering and referring to the asserted propensity evidence contained in Exhibit 5, I do so only in relation to the individual defendant (or defendants) against which that evidence is admissible.

communications certain Macedonian terms were used. The translation of those terms was admitted by agreement.


[63] In addition to the documentary exhibits the Crown produced a series of video recordings which were introduced as direct evidence in support of some charges and as propensity evidence in support of others. The recordings include a “GIF” which is a certified objectionable publication for the purposes of Charge 39 faced by Roberto Jaz.

[64] In opening his case Mr McRae emphasised the Crown reliance upon propensity evidence. That evidence, he submitted, would be both external and internal. Clearly there is a basis for that submission and it will be for me to determine if any of the evidence establishes a pattern of behaviour or tendency for each or any of the defendants to act in a certain way. If so, I can take it into account.

[65] I also received a statement of admitted facts signed by all counsel and tendered pursuant to s 9 of the Evidence Act 2006. That document detailed matters relevant to the charges concerning certain complainants, the search of the property occupied by Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones] and, significantly, the ESR analysis of drugs found in the possession of Roberto Jaz. It also annexed the certification by the Office of Film and Literature classification of the GIF as an objectionable publication.

Professor Drummer


[66] Professor Drummer was called by the Crown to give expert evidence on stupefaction and related issues and it is convenient and appropriate to begin with a detailed analysis of his opinions which are central to the cornerstone issue of stupefaction in the disabling and stupefying charges. No defence expert was called.

[67] He is a forensic pharmacologist and toxicologist based in Melbourne, Australia, and is a part-time consultant in forensic toxicology at the Victoria Institute of Forensic Medicine. He is also an Emeritus Professor at Monash University in Melbourne.

[68] For the purposes of this case he prepared a 43 page report which was produced without objection as Exhibit 65. His evidence was led by reference to that report.

[69] He prepared a second report which was produced as Exhibit 66 and which referred to supplementary hair sample analysis.

[70] For the purposes of preparing his report the Professor received a brief of the Operation Sinatra enquiry and details of the allegations against the defendants. He received the Crown Summary of Facts and FWS of the complainants and supporting witnesses detailing symptoms and behaviour alleged to be the result of stupefaction.

[71] Reading from his report (Exhibit 65) the Professor made general observations and comments on drug absorption and elimination. He detailed the biology of oral absorption, nasal insufflation (otherwise known as snorting), the distribution of drugs within the body and detailed the process of elimination.

[72] His obvious focus was upon drugs known to have stupefying effects and also drugs admittedly used by some complainants. He noted that some drugs can be in solid form and which are easily soluble. Others are in liquid form. He noted that drugs can be readily added to drinks, including alcoholic beverages. He said that co- consumption of alcohol may also affect the rate and extent of absorption of drugs by affecting solubility and rate of gastro-intestinal motility.

[73] He said that inhaling drugs through the nose and nasal passages and sinuses allows relatively rapid absorption through membranes as well as allowing the drug to be inhaled directly into the lungs producing a much quicker onset of drug action with almost complete bio-availability. Drugs absorbed in this way go straight into the blood stream rather than going to the liver and then to arterial circulation as occurs with drugs taken orally and which is a slower process of absorption.

[74] He detailed the mechanism by which drugs can enter hair and the process by which hair is tested. He described the variation in the rates of hair growth and the multiple factors that affect retention of drugs in hair. They include the physio-

chemical properties of the drugs, the mechanism of incorporation, hair colour and type, bleaching of hair and other treatments including shampooing.


[75] He said that the concentration of drugs in the hair will also depend on a number of factors including regularity of use and said that one dose may not be detected even using sensitive analytical methods.

[76] Further, the incorporation into hair is dependent on the length of the segment noting:

It is not possible to estimate a dose from hair concentration given the large variability in concentrations from one person to another and the varying mechanism of entry into the hair and the subsequent losses from both laboratory decontamination techniques of washing, hair cleansing from shampooing and other various hair treatment such as dying and bleaching.


[77] He adds that a further factor is that hair might not always be in an active growing stage.

[78] The Professor also observed that the French laboratory only conducted targeted testing for a limited range of drugs confirming the obvious point that the testing does not exclude drugs that were not tested for.

[79] The difficulties that I saw in drawing any reliable conclusions from the hair analysis conducted in the French laboratory were cemented in my mind when the Professor addressed his second report (Exhibit 66). Referring to difficulties mentioned in his first report he said that those difficulties are increased further when there is a particularly long period from alleged exposure to the collection of hair, noting that for two complainants there was a 15 month and 19 month delay. He referred to the difficulties that arise when the growth rate of hair is unknown, resulting in what he said was a “very rubbery sort of estimation of possible period of exposure”.

[80] He noted also that a further source of uncertainty is that a drug may not appear even when the growth rate is known and that each hair strand will not always be in an actively growing stage.

[81] Although the report from the French laboratory was not produced as an exhibit Professor Drummer summarised the results concerning seven complainants in an Appendix to this first report. He detailed the alleged incident date, the specimen of hair tested, and the gap between the alleged incident and the taking of the hair sample.

[82] He detailed the results for two further complainants in his second report.

[83] Having regard to his clear evidence as to the variables that must be taken into account, and in the knowledge that only some drugs were tested for, I reached a firm conclusion that I could not draw any reliable inference from the hair testing results. I thus set aside those results when determining if the Crown had proved each or any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

[84] The Professor discussed specific drugs including alcohol.

Alcohol


[85] He said that alcohol is a depressant and at sufficient levels of blood alcohol concentration produces decreased motor coordination and speech articulation, intellectual performance, judgement and sensory discrimination. He said that typical tell tale signs of intoxication are slurred speech and unsteadiness on the feet.

[86] The effect of alcohol on an individual is influenced by the rate of consumption, weight and whether food is consumed at the same time.

[87] He added that notwithstanding alcohol is a depressant of the central nervous system (CNS), it produces disinhibition and an increase of confidence resulting in gregarious behaviour and, at times, aggressive and reckless conduct.

[88] Finally, he gave the opinion that alcohol will enhance the adverse effects of the date rape drug GHB and most other CNS active drugs including benzodiazepines and amphetamine like stimulants.

Citalopram


[89] One of the anti-depressant drugs which increases concentrations of the neurotransmitter serotonin in nerve terminals. It may cause adverse symptoms known as serotonin syndrome or serotonin toxicity when used with other drugs that increase serotonin concentration. These other drugs include MDMA and similarly acting amphetamine or cathinone-based stimulants, as well as a range of other drugs including ephylone.

Chlorpheniramine and promethazine


[90] Both are antihistamines and have a sedative effect, and when taken in sufficient doses may result in dizziness, headache, dry mouth, anxiety, blurred vision and tremor.

Clonazepam and flunitrazepam


[91] Both belong to the benzodiazepine group of drugs. Clonazepam has very similar properties to flunitrazepam.

[92] Flunitrazepam is generically known as Rohypnol and comes in olive green caplets with a blue core turning light coloured drinks a liquid blue. Coloured drinks are, however, likely to hide this colour change.

[93] Of particular significance in this case, the Professor said that street names for flunitrazepam include “roofie” and “ruffie”.

[94] Flunitrazepam is readily absorbed and will reach maximum blood concentrations within an hour.

[95] The primary pharmacological effect of flunitrazepam is to sedate. It depresses the central nervous system, particularly if taken to excess. Pharmacological effects of significant doses of flunitrazepam include slurred speech, confusion, dizziness, slower reaction times, poor coordination, poor reasoning ability, and will also cause disinhibition.

[96] Flunitrazepam can also affect short-term memory during the peak of the drug’s effects and can be selective in that not all events occurring at this time are lost resulting in partial memory only.

[97] The disinhibiting effect of flunitrazepam (rohypnol) can lead to effects often seen with excessive use of alcohol ranging from gregarious behaviour to aggression. In some cases, says the Professor, paradoxical reactions can occur that are associated with alterations in perceptual and cognitive function. Agitation, de-personalisation, mania, violence and aggression can occur in this state in which the subject appears to have no conscious control over their actions. Co-consumption of alcohol will increase the likelihood of this occurring.

[98] The Professor said that this drug, along with other benzodiazepines, is one of the more common drugs used in drug facilitated assaults due to its ability to not only sedate and reduce inhibitions, but also to adversely affect the memory of any assault. These affects can appear within 15-30 minutes.

[99] He is aware that this drug has been known to be added to drinks, including alcoholic drinks, particularly those that are coloured.

[100] Although occurring in pill form, the pill can be crushed and added to a liquid or, after crushing, inhaled by snorting.

[101] If taken orally in a liquid, absorption would depend upon transfers through the small intestine whereas snorting would have a much quicker effect but oral consumption is the most common way this drug is taken.

Ecstasy (MDMA)


[102] An amphetamine possessing stimulant effects on the brain and cardiovascular system. MDMA comes in tablets or capsules and is usually taken orally by swallowing a pill or dissolving a pill in a liquid. It can also be taken by snorting. If taken orally it is rapidly absorbed with effects appearing within 15 minutes. Inhaling by snorting would produce a much quicker effect. A recreational dose would range from 25 to 100 milligrams to obtain a sense of wellbeing and increased energy levels. Many users

experience an increase in empathy towards others, an increase in perceptiveness as well as a heightened sensation of colours and smells. Recreational use is common in nightclubs or social events.


[103] Increased empathy and sociability, particularly when taken with alcohol, results in reduced inhibitions leading to lessened ability to resist sexual advances and assaults. The drug appears also to increase sexual arousal.

[104] MDMA is known to be associated with drug facilitated assaults, often with use of other CNS active drugs. These include alcohol, other stimulants, benzodiazepines, GHB, ketamine as well as opioid analgesics, anti-depressants, sedating antihistamines and some anti-psychotics.

[105] Some of the CNS stimulatory effects include euphoria, increased talkativeness and a sense of wellbeing, grinding of the teeth (bruxism), increased heart rate, nervousness, muscle tremor, nervous tics, ataxia (unsteadiness on the feet, swaying) and urinary retention.

GHB


[106] Marketed overseas as a hypnotic sleeping aid, it is a water soluble substance readily available on the illicit market. It is odourless with a slightly salty taste that can be masked by flavoured drinks.

[107] GHB is an illicit drug known to be associated with drug facilitated assault where complainants are rendered less capable or even incapable of resisting an assault. It can also increase sexual appetite which is probably related to its disinhibiting effect. It is colloquially known as “liquid ecstasy” or “liquid X”.

[108] As it can be absorbed in the stomach as well as the small intestine significant symptoms will manifest much earlier than with some other drugs, possibly within minutes, but once absorbed it is rapidly eliminated and difficult to detect on clinical analysis as it remains in the blood and urine for a very short time. Samples need to be taken within a few hours of consumption.

[109] As a CNS depressant it has many characteristics similar to the depressant effect of alcohol. Low to moderate doses produce euphoria with a relaxant and disinhibitory effect similar to alcohol with higher dosages associated with aggression, delirium, hallucinations, headache, impaired speech, nausea, respiratory depression, vertigo, vomiting and other adverse effects.

[110] GHB can cause a loss of conscious awareness with retrograde amnesia similar to many of the hypnotic benzodiazepines such as clonazepam.

[111] Concomitant use of alcohol is common in persons using or being given surreptitious GHB. When this occurs substantial impairment, including disinhibition and anterograde memory loss is likely.

New psychoactive drugs


[112] The Professor discussed a number of drugs in this category, many of which were found in the possession of Roberto Jaz.

BZP


[113] A stimulant, weaker than amphetamine, which is rapidly absorbed and eliminated. It produces some euphoria and increases sociability together with stimulatory effects similar to amphetamine. It releases the neurotransmitters dopamine and noradrenaline. It can also produce dysphoria and a range of undesirable effects such as anxiety, agitation, hallucinations, vomiting, confusion, dizziness, fatigue and depression, particularly as the drug is wearing off with repeated use.

2C-B


[114] A psychedelic substance related to amphetamine but more similar in structure and activity to mescaline and the NBOMe series of drugs. Recreational doses are up to 25 mg, with 5 mg doses used as an alternative to MDMA.

[115] This drug can be taken by snorting but this is painful to the nasal mucosa. Users can also experience various types of hallucinations such as visual, auditory and even tactile, associated with anxiety, agitation and confusion.

Ephylone


[116] This drug belongs to the cathinone class of psychoactive drugs which are related to amphetamines. It has an illicit use as an MDMA substitute. It has been known to cause significant psychostimulant effects including agitation, aggression and hallucinations.

MDPV


[117] Again, a member of the cathinone family with broadly similar properties to ephylone and MDMA and is a strong stimulant with properties resembling methamphetamine. It is available as tablets, capsules or powder and can be used orally or by snorting. The usual pharmacological and physiological effects with reasonable dosages include agitation, euphoria, enhanced mood and empathy, hallucinations, twitching, bruxism, sexual arousal, with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.

25I-NBOMe


[118] A potent agonist of serotonin receptors and, at higher doses, other receptor systems causing substantial psychedelic effects that can last several hours. The effects are elevated heart rate and blood pressure, agitation, aggression associated with visual and auditory hallucinations.

25B-NBOH


[119] The pharmacological and physiological effects are similar to 25I-NBOMe.

[120] Professor Drummer, when referring to the hair analysis carried out by the French laboratory, noted that:

Other than ephylone, no other NPS were screened. Drugs such as MDPV would also give MDMA like effect and drugs such as NBOMe and 2C-series are all possibilities; and are more likely to cause hallucinations as well.


[121] Having concluded his review of specific drugs, Professor Drummer then discussed the possible effects of drug combinations.

[122] He noted that the information provided to him was that in the majority of the cases the complainants had used alcohol before the alleged stupefaction, some in significant amounts. He said that as alcohol is primarily a CNS depressant, any other drug that operates on the CNS will contribute to altered brain functions, including memory retention. Other sedative drugs, taken with alcohol, will likely result in a further reduction of inhibitions with an increased risk of being less able to resist unwanted advances. It can also result in unexpected aggression. Amnesia is common with individuals having little conscious control of their actions.

[123] The combination of MDMA (a stimulant) with a CNS depressant does not lead to a cancelling of the effects of each drug, as may intuitively be expected, although MDMA would reduce some of the sedating effects of drugs such as flunitrazepam.

[124] Both drugs (stimulant and depressant) will interfere with cognition and both will lead to a reduction in inhibition and increased socialisation. Again, increased aggression is possible, although that has not been well studied, but concomitant use of alcohol will intensify adverse effects. MDMA, and drugs with similar MDMA effect from the new psychoactive family, such as ephylone, BZP, MDPV and 2C-B, in combination with alcohol, will further reduce inhibitions by enhancing the sociability and engagement with others. These drugs do not directly cause amnesia but concomitant excessive alcohol use will impact memory retention.

[125] The Professor noted that of all complainants, 17 reported their inability to remember what happened at all or had partial memory during the hours when an assault may have occurred. He then said:

Other than a contribution from alcohol, the apparent suddenness of the physical and mental state following a drink from the bar does suggest a substance(s) was added to the drink that had pharmacological properties similar to a benzodiazepine or to GHB.


[126] He said that the combined use of two or more drugs may increase serotonin activity. Serotonin, in key parts of the brain such as nerve endings, impacts upon physiological function. MDMA is a potent serotonin active drug, as is MDPV and ephylone. In some situations this can lead to serotonin toxicity (sometimes referred

to as serotonin syndrome) which can be life threatening. He said it is not clear whether some manifestation of the syndrome occurred.


[127] He was questioned on some matters common to nearly all complainants and which impacted upon the issue of whether they were stupefied.

[128] A common theme of the complainants’ evidence was that how they felt at the time of the supposed stupefaction, and the next and following days, was distinctly unlike an alcohol hangover. They said that they were aware of how alcohol affects them, had hangovers in the past, but what they experienced was different and more long-lasting.

[129] Whereas with a hangover it was possible to get out of bed, go to work and function, albeit at a lower level, there were references to going to work but having to go home and back to bed. One complainant missed an important flight which she would otherwise have been able to catch, hungover or not, but could not make the flight after being at MH. Complainants described lethargy, depression, vomiting and an inability to function, in some cases for some days. Given that description, the Professor responded:

Yeah well those sort of symptoms are not what you would expect from an alcohol hangover ... It does point to a chemical substance being at least, you know, a cause for these symptoms.


[130] When asked whether that was because the drug was still in the body or because the impacts continued despite metabolisation of the drug, the Professor responded:

Well for the most part it is usually caused by something being still in the body, usually in the brain in this situation here. For some of these drugs they are metabolite but also active pharmacologically so they can, not always, can persist for longer than the parent or the active drug and while some drugs might have an apparently shorter half life that other drugs the half life is only a relative term, if more was taken it takes longer for the body to remove the drug.


[131] When asked by the Court:

Can I take from you that some of the drugs you have spoken about could cause symptoms that were unlike a hangover and would be ongoing in the way that has been described?


[132] The Professor responded “Yes”.

[133] Ms Aickin, representing Roberto Jaz, established in cross-examination that MDMA, citalopram and ephylone do not cause amnesia. The Professor repeated that consumption of MDMA, a stimulant, would not completely cancel out the effects of alcohol concurrently consumed. If anything, the effect of alcohol may be pronounced.

[134] As noted below Ms Aickin focused on ephylone toxicity in her questions of the Professor but that needs to be considered in the context the evidence of the drug expert Detective Sergeant Western. In his evidence in chief he said that he was aware of high strength MDMA in the community from about 2018-2019 and that MDMA in powder form was being cut with such things as caffeine, ketamine, and cathinones including ephylone. More recently the cathinone n-ethylpentylone had been found in substances thought to be only MDMA.

[135] He said that in February 2018 there were a number of hospital admissions from people attending a Christchurch festival where it was believed the harm was caused by high strength MDMA and/or n-ethylpentylone.

[136] He referred to the drug testing website KnowYourStuffNZ which warned of high-strength ecstasy pills that were prevalent in the festival scene.

[137] He agreed that n-ethylpentylone and ephylone are close variants and that in 2018 ephylone was found in drugs thought to be MDMA. The Detective Sergeant acknowledged that it was common for drug dealers to cut MDMA in powder form with ephylone or n-ethylpentylone.

[138] He was asked about the effect of an MDMA/ephylone powder at 50/50 proportions and in particular whether ephylone is more fast-acting and more extreme in producing symptoms or slower.

[139] The Detective Sergeant could not answer, acknowledging that it was beyond his expertise, but referring to “his understanding” said that for cathinones to have a significant effect a significant amount would need to be consumed.

[140] Returning to the police concern in 2018 arising from the hospitalisation of some festival goers, Ms Aickin asked:

The police were concerned about ephylone weren’t they in 2018 because of those other physical effects that might happen weren’t they?


[141] The Detective Sergeant answered:

Well we didn’t know what those people were hospitalised for ... we suspected it was MDMA or cathinones so we were worried about the admissions and who was dealing at these festivals so some reaction was necessary.


[142] When questioned by Ms Aiken about serotonin activation Professor Drummer agreed that both MDMA and ephylone are potent serotonin activators and confirmed his prior evidence that there is such a thing as serotonin syndrome.

[143] He said serotonin syndrome includes confusion, dilated pupils, loss of muscle coordination, anxiety, shivering and rapid heartrate by activating serotonin levels in the brain. He said it was possible that a combination of drugs, such as MDMA together with ephylone could result in excessive serotonin in the brain.

[144] But he said in relation to the symptoms described:

Yes again they are all symptoms of just general MDMA like effects. Serotonin toxicity manifests in some form of stereotype behaviour or movements, heightened temperature which is a classical symptom of serotonin toxicity, and there are other symptoms too but they are more than just stimulatory effects of the phetamine type drugs, MDMA like drugs resulting in much more severe symptoms than what’s been largely discussed.


[145] In answer to the questions to the Court, the Professor said that when he talks about serotonin toxicity, he means life-threatening rather than some side effect.

[146] The Professor agreed with Ms Aickin that it is possible that if multiple doses of MDMA were taken over the course of a single evening that might cause serotonin syndrome, particularly if the drug was high-strength or mixed with another drug such as ephylone.

[147] He also agreed that if a line of MDMA drug was snorted it may contain a concentration of the drug, either higher or less than what was expected by the user.

[148] These questions of the Professor were consistent with the line taken by Ms Aickin with a number of complainants, in particular [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] who had both voluntarily consumed MDMA before being given drugs at Venuti by Roberto Jaz.

[149] [Complainant 4] admitted that she had not tested the drugs which she had obtained from a previously reliable dealer. She admitted obtaining further MDMA at MH after her supply had run out but gave no evidence that she was experiencing anything unusual from her own voluntary consumption of drugs. The drugs taken by her were no more than recreational amounts. She said it was only when given drugs by Roberto Jaz that she experienced anything unusual.

[150] Similar questions about testing drugs were put to other complainants.

[151] It seemed from Ms Aickin’s questions of the drug expert and Professor Drummer on serotonin toxicity and questions to certain complainants about testing of MDMA that she was proposing that symptoms exhibited or experienced by some complainants were as a result of their own voluntary consumption of MDMA which was unknowingly strong or cut with ephylone or another serotonin activator.

[152] The difficulty with that approach is that it invites speculation upon speculation. What would the testing establish? What was the cutting agent, if any? What was the strength of the drug? Not to mention in relation to [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] that although a blood test established ephylone in the blood and urine of [complainant 4] there was no ephylone found in the blood and urine samples taken from [complainant 5] seven hours before the samples were taken from [complainant 4].

[153] Both [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] gave consistent accounts of their experience at Venuti with Roberto Jaz after being given drugs by him. Each described a rapid change when describing the effect of those drugs with neither experiencing any difficulty before then.

[154] The apparent serotonin toxicity theory that [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] inflicted that condition upon themselves by recreational drug use is purely speculative and unsupported by the evidence and is not a reasonably possible explanation for the symptoms experienced by them or any complainants and as observed by others.

[155] To the contrary, the evidence points clearly in the opposite direction. As will be seen when I address individual complainants the overwhelming impact of the Crown case is that the convicted defendant or defendants are clearly responsible for the stupefaction of those complainants.

[156] As will be seen below, the Crown has proved that the Jaz brothers sought and obtained high strength MDMA which they referred to as SMRK. The only persons shown to have access to a particularly potent form of MDMA are the defendants. There is no proof whatsoever that any drugs voluntarily consumed by any complainant were other than what those drugs were portrayed to be or were taken in amounts beyond normal recreational doses. To conclude otherwise would be to guess and I will not accept an apparent invitation to do that.

[157] Furthermore, the suggestion in cross-examination by a number of defence counsel that some complainants had simply taken too much alcohol was similarly without impact. Professor Drummer was clear, as were the complainants and their supporting witnesses, that the symptoms experienced by complainants were beyond the mere impact of alcohol.

[158] He agreed that the larger the quantity of alcohol the greater the impact on memory but would not agree that cued memory after alcohol induced amnesia would produce a recall of something that did not happen. At best he said that was a potential, noting that he was not a memory expert.

[159] Nor would the Professor agree that any of the drugs discussed by him and which can be taken by nasal insufflation would cause irritation or burning. He was not aware that was a general symptom of people snorting drugs.

[160] Mr Matthews questioned the Professor on matters specific to the complainant SB and made inconsequential reference to the cocktail red bull and vodka commonly consumed at MH.

[161] Ms Pointer questioned him on the cumulative effect of alcohol and his evidence that stimulant drugs, when taken with alcohol, would exacerbate the effect of alcohol.

[162] There were some general questions about the excretion of alcohol and drugs, and that drugs take longer to leave the body as they penetrate parts of the brain and other tissues.

[163] In relation to Ms Pointer’s questions about the drug GHB, the Professor said that GHB is an anaesthetic type drug causing some form of amnesia and in some sense acts like alcohol where it numbs the body and causes disinhibition. He repeated that it has a distinct impact upon memory and that people who use GHB report that they have no complete memory of what occurred.

[164] The Professor said that persons under the influence of a disinhibiting drug may interact and talk but what they are doing may be disinhibited and not necessarily what they would be doing or saying when they are not on a drug and they may not remember much or anything afterwards.

[165] That led to questions from the Court:

Q. Counsel’s ... point is if someone is objectively compliant, even requesting things to occur in a sexual way, if that person was subject to or intoxicated with one of these drugs, would they be, to use your words from your report “unable to resist what was going on”?

A. It is usually what seems to occur, Your Honour. Yes, they can be saying things and perhaps agreeing to certain things but the decision making is impaired by the drug, they are disinhibited. GHB does enhance sexual activity it is well known. That may well be out of character when they are not using the drug.

Q. But there would be a difference wouldn’t there from enhanced sexual desire as a result of the drug, in other words acting out of character, there would be a difference between that and the ability to avoid what is happening?

A. Yes, that is different. Many drugs can actually affect the ability to resist, even thought they may not necessarily be GHB like or benzodiazepine like. It seems like these people are in a bit of a state, their conscious cognitive decision-making is impaired, they don’t quite know what is going on. They are in a sense almost, I wouldn’t say trance like state in most cases but they are in a sense not able to have any decent resistance or attention making no, saying no, and to resist that advance and before they know it, it’s happened. And afterwards they wonder what actually really did happen.


Knowledge of drugs


[166] The charges of stupefying and disabling are all particularised as “by way of an unknown substance administered in her/his drink”.

[167] The Crown acknowledges that it cannot identify the particular substance that led to stupefaction but relies upon a circumstantial case based on the evidence of the complainants, the expert evidence and the defendants’ familiarity with stupefying drugs.

[168] That familiarity, submits the Crown, is established in communications between the defendants and others, the provision of drugs by them at MH and Venuti and drugs found in the possession of Roberto Jaz on termination of the enquiry.

[169] The communications and exchanges relied upon by the Crown are contained in Exhibit 5. Throughout the conversations the defendants made regular reference to SMRK which the Crown submits is high-strength MDMA. The Crown says it is apparent that SMRK is obtained by Roberto Jaz from an Australian contact and based on the evidence of the drug expert Detective Sergeant Western SMRK is MDMA.

[170] Roberto Jaz makes reference to buying SMRK11 and that it is particularly potent “I guarantee one drop of SMRK ... the [associate 1] and robby show will happen”.12

[171] Roberto Jaz refers to SMRK as MD and as “powerful shit” and enquires if it was “Molly”. The police drug expert gave evidence that MDMA is known as MD and

11 Exhibit 5, pages 8 and 9.

12 Exhibit 5, page 20.

Molly, among other names. The Crown submits that this conversation13 confirms SMRK is high potency MDMA.


[172] Roberto Jaz makes reference to “a g for 400”14 which the drug expert says is the purchase of a gram of MDMA for $400.

[173] Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones] refer to SMRK15 when referring to what the Crown says is a photograph posted by Roberto Jaz of two lines of powdered drug.16 The expert evidence is that MDMA can be taken in powered form by nasal insufflation (snorting).

[174] The Jaz brothers refer to SMRK in a motor vehicle, with apparent concern that it may be discovered.17

[175] Roberto Jaz makes reference to “roffies”, and also “roofied” in two conversations. The expert evidence is that both terms apply to the date rape drug rohypnol.

[176] In a conversation with a third party18 Roberto Jaz boasts that he “sorted the brazilian out” on a bench seat in the restaurant. When asked how that came about as she “wasn’t keen” Roberto Jaz replies “roffies”.

[177] The Crown submits that this conversation is not only evidence that Roberto Jaz has knowledge of and has used rohypnol, but it demonstrates his propensity to take women to Venuti for sexual purposes. It also shows his indifference to consent and propensity to use drugs to facilitate sexual offences without consent.

[178] In a further conversation between himself and [Sam Jones]19 Roberto Jaz says that he had “just roffied [my partner]’s drink”, a reference, the Crown says, shows knowledge of rohypnol.

13 Exhibit 5, page 54.

14 Exhibit 5, page 24.

15 Exhibit 5, pages 65 and 176.

16 Exhibit 5, page 32.

17 Exhibit 5, pages 34 and 112.

18 Exhibit 5, page 63.

19 Exhibit 5, pages 21 and 159.


[179] I accept that the above evidence is admissible against those defendants to which it applies. I accept the Crown’s submission that it establishes that all defendants have a knowledge of MDMA and that they obtained a strong variety of that drug. In addition, Roberto Jaz expresses a clear knowledge of rohypnol and that he had used it to drug a female.

[180] As I refer to below [witness G],20 Roberto Jaz’s former partner, gave evidence that the Jaz brothers were inclined to joke about a number of things including making sexual comments and reference to drugs. She made particular reference to film or television programmes which they would use as a template for humour. Ms Aickin played and extract from a cartoon television programme “The Family Guy” in which a person is seen to order a drink for himself and a “roofie-colada” for his date.

[181] In the propensity communication in Exhibit E in which Roberto Jaz says that he “just roffied [my partner]’s drink” [Sam Jones] responds by asking “did you buy her a roofie-colada”.

[182] It may well be that [Sam Jones] is responding in a flippant way adopting the words from the television programme but I am in no doubt at all that the references to drugs throughout the propensity communications are serious and relate to actual drugs which are not only sought but were obtained and were available for use. The reference by Roberto Jaz to using “roffies” to enable him to “sort the Brazilian out” is no joke. He is boasting not only about his knowledge of rohypnol but that he had used it.

[183] Similarly, whilst the convicted defendants may have joked between each other in a ribald way about sexual issues, their drugging of, and sexual offending against, complainants was deadly serious and could not under any circumstances be classified as light-hearted or joking.

[184] As acknowledged in the s 9 admission document, [address deleted – address 1], the residence of Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones], was searched by the police on 12

20 The Crown applied for an order permanently suppressing the name of [witness G]. That order was made without opposition on 21.7.23. Similarly, with the consent of the Crown, I made an order on 21.7.23 permanently suppressing the names of the partner and children of Danny Jaz. The Crown abided my decision to make a similar order for the mother of the Jaz brothers.

September 2018. In the kitchen under a bench the police found a number of DVDs which were seized and held for future examination.


[185] In June 2020 the police found among the DVDs a coin bag containing pills or tablets.21 Roberto Jaz’s fingerprint was found on the bag.

[186] ESR analysed its contents and found:

[187] It was not disputed at trial that the drugs found at [address 1] were in the possession of Roberto Jaz.

[188] In assessing the charges which require proof of stupefaction I take into account the defendants’ proven knowledge of stupefying drugs when considering if any of them are guilty of a particular offence.

External propensity


[189] The Crown contends that the Jaz brothers have an established propensity to target staff of MH and/or Venuti for sexual offending. It is also submitted that [Sam Jones] exhibits a similar propensity which the Crown relies upon in charges that he faces.

[190] In support of that submission the Crown refers to Exhibit 5 and points to a number of exchanges which are said to establish a clear propensity to overtly target female staff for future sexual exploitation. The Crown says this established propensity is relevant in my determination as to whether each or any of the charges, in which

21 Exhibit 1, images 89-96.

present or past staff members are complainants, are proved. I thus analyse the exchanges referred to by Crown counsel.


[191] All three defendants are party to a WhatsApp conversation in February 2014 where Danny Jaz posts a photograph of a female saying “new waitress boys”. All three defendants make references which show a clear sexual interest in her.22

[192] In August 2014 Roberto Jaz posts a picture of a female on a WhatsApp conversation saying “she starts next week” and all three defendants make comments expressing a sexual interest in her.23

[193] In a WhatsApp conversation in April 2015 Roberto Jaz posts a photograph of a female, saying “new waitress boys who wants it?”. All three defendants respond with sexual references.24

[194] A 15 April 2015 WhatsApp conversation has Danny Jaz posting a photograph of a female saying: “New waitress boys” with all defendants making similar sexual references.25

[195] In May 2015 Danny Jaz posts photographs containing an image of a female, saying “boys this bitch wants to pump” with Roberto Jaz responding “another waitress for you to pump”. Roberto Jaz posts further photographs of females and all defendants make lewd and sexual references about them.26

[196] Additional group chat exchanges between all defendants make reference to the availability of waitresses for sexual purposes with accompanying sexually explicit references.27

[197] In addition to the propensity evidence referred to above is a further WhatsApp conversation in January 2016 involving the Jaz brothers and others, but not [Sam

22 Exhibit 5, pages 291 and 47.

23 Exhibit 5, pages 693 and 148.

24 Exhibit 5, pages 11, 95 and 150.

25 Exhibit 5, pages 13, 97 and 52.

26 Exhibit 5, pages 16, 101, 55.

27 Exhibit 5, pages 18, 102 and 157; pages 22, 104 and 160; pages 41, 118 and 73.

Jones]. This WhatsApp conversation is further propensity evidence but has direct relevance to the charges involving [complainant 1] (Charges 13-19). In January 2016 Danny Jaz posts a photograph of [complainant 1] saying “trial 2moro night. Whos keen”.28 As will be seen, [complainant 1] was employed at MH and was offended against on 2 April 2017, the night before she intended to return to her home in the UK.


[198] I accept on the basis of those group exchanges that the Jaz brothers display a clearly established propensity to target female staff of MH and/or Venuti for sexual purposes and treated them as sexual objects. They involve [Sam Jones] in their plans when he was available. No other reasonable inference is available other than that the Jaz brothers sought to employ attractive female staff who they considered fair game for sexual activity.

[199] I accept, however, that proven propensity does not extend to a propensity to drug staff for the purposes of facilitating sexual offending but shows an overt sexual interest in staff and a desire to engage sexually with them.

[200] As will be seen however, I find on an internal/cross propensity basis that the Jaz brothers do have a firmly established individual tendency, short of a common purpose, to stupefy patrons and staff and, on some occasions, do so to further sexual exploitation.

[201] In a WhatsApp conversation between [Sam Jones] and Roberto Jaz in September 2015, [Sam Jones] asks Roberto Jaz to “take a better pic of the waitress ass man”. Roberto Jaz responds with a photograph of a clothed bottom.29

[202] [Witness G] said in evidence that she recognised the posterior of her former partner Roberto Jaz and that the photograph is typical of the banter and joking which took place between the brothers and others.

[203] I accept her evidence that the photograph is of her former partner Roberto Jaz and that there was ribbing and joking, often of a ribald nature.

28 Exhibit 5, pages 60 and 129.

29 Exhibit 5, pages 40 and 172.


[204] At one point she was referred to part of a messaging exchange which she says was directly extracted from a song and intended to be humorous. I accept her evidence on that point as well, but the hard and inescapable reality is that the targeting of staff and patrons for sexual purposes; the treatment of staff and patrons as sexual objects; the admitted sexual offending by Danny Jaz; the proven sexual offending by Roberto Jaz; the drugging of those that were sexually offended against and the possession and use of drugs for that purpose is far from a joke.

[205] All of those matters are indicative of an arrogant, entitled and hubristic approach to young women that came within the orbit of the Jaz brothers in the conduct of their business at MH and Venuti, and who were seen as fair game indifferent to their rights and indifferent to consent.

[206] An April 2014 message from Roberto Jaz to an unknown person discusses the availability of females at a flat. Roberto Jaz enquires “... any puss there”. The unknown man replies “lots just inactive”. Roberto Jaz then says “rape”.

[207] I consider this to be an incriminating exchange admissible against Roberto Jaz. I do not consider the reference to “rape” to be a flippant joke. One need only enquire why he used the word at all. It is indicative of a mindset of arrogance and entitlement displayed by Roberto Jaz and which comes through in the evidence supporting the charges he faced.

[208] Video recordings made by Roberto Jaz were also produced as evidence directly relevant to charges or as propensity evidence. I will refer to them where appropriate as I will the further exchanges in Exhibit 5 that the Crown relies upon as propensity evidence.

[209] I now address each charge in the order set out in the Crown Charge List.

Charge 3 (Danny Jaz)

Offering to supply MDMA to [complainant 9] (1 April 2015 – 30 November 2015)


[210] [Complainant 9] was a regular at MH and would go there with her friend [complainant 8]. As with many of the female complainants she was able to “skip the

queue” and get direct entry to the bar. She came to know the Jaz brothers and, as also applies to many of the complainants, would get free drinks, often delivered on a tray by one of the Jaz brothers.


[211] It was a regular pattern in the evidence of complainants that the bouncers or Danny Jaz would allow them to enter without remaining in the queue and that free drinks would be available in tumblers or in shot glasses.

[212] [Complainant 9] recalls an occasion when she was in one of the toilets at MH with Danny Jaz who produced a powder from his pocket saying it was MDMA. It was offered to her and she took it. Her friend [complainant 8] was also in the toilet at that time and took some of the drug offered by Danny Jaz. She denied in cross-examination that someone other than Danny Jaz offered the drug. Her denial is the evidence.

[213] [Complainant 9] also gave evidence of a later occasion at MH when she was allegedly stupefied (Charge 8). I found her evidence to be credible and reliable, including that she and [complainant 8] were offered MDMA by Danny Jaz in the toilets at MH. Danny Jaz was convicted of this charge.

Charge 4 (Danny Jaz)30

Offering to supply MDMA to [complainant 8] (1 April 2015 – 30 November 2015)


[214] In her EVI statement and supplementary oral evidence [complainant 8] refers to being in the MH toilets with Danny Jaz and others when drugs were taken. Immediately after that she was taken to a toilet by Danny Jaz and sexually offended against. Danny Jaz has pleaded guilty to Charges 5 and 6 which allege indecent assault against [complainant 8].

[215] [Complainant 8] makes no reference to the separate occasion when she and [complainant 9] were offered MDMA by Danny Jaz in the toilet, but [complainant 9] was clear that did occur. On the basis of [complainant 9]’s evidence Danny Jaz was convicted of Charge 4.

30 The charge as originally laid was against both Jaz brothers but Roberto Jaz was discharged under s 147 CPA on 3 April 2023.

Charge 7 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Attempting to stupefy [complainant 8] (1 November 2015 – 30 November 2015)

Charge 8 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Stupefying [complainant 9] (1 November 2015 – 30 November 2015)


[216] As with many of the charges the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence. The Crown asserts that the Jaz brothers formed a common purpose to sexually offend against both complainants having targeted them over a number of months in 2015. The Crown case is that the facts that underlie Charges 7 and 8 are the culmination of that targeting and that there was an attempt to stupefy [complainant 8] and that [complainant 9] was actually stupefied.

[217] In addition to the direct evidence from both [complainant 8] and [complainant 9] concerning those allegations the Crown relies on the following matters to support its circumstantial case:

31 Exhibit 5, pages 45, 47 and 122; Exhibit 1, image111.

32 Exhibit 5, page 46.


(e) On the same occasion, [complainant 8] inadvertently left her cellphone at MH. Danny Jaz, who was not at [the friend]’s, found the cellphone and accessed its contents, including private and intimate personal photographs, without her authority and posted those intimate and personal photographs to a WhatsApp conversation, including Roberto Jaz;33

(f) That WhatsApp conversation demonstrates a clear sexual interest in [complainant 8] by Roberto Jaz, Danny Jaz and other participants;

(g) In a later WhatsApp conversation between different parties but including the Jaz brothers, Roberto Jaz refers to [complainant 8] and approves of Danny Jaz accessing the personal photographs from her phone;34

(h) On 25 October 2015 Roberto Jaz takes a selfie with both complainants in the MH toilets and retained that photograph on his phone;35

(i) Roberto Jaz loads two further photographs of the complainants on his cellphone on 2 November 2015;36

(j) Roberto Jaz, in a WhatsApp conversation with his brother Davide Jaz on 15 November 2015, expresses an interest in both complainants.37

[218] The Crown submits that when these matters, all occurring before the date of the alleged offending in Charges 7 and 8, are considered in light of the evidence of the complainants directly relevant to those charges (referred to below) there is proof of a common purpose formed by the Jaz brothers to sexually engage with the complainants, that one or both of the brothers was the principal in the attempted stupefaction of [complainant 8] and the actual stupefaction of [complainant 9], that both knew it was

33 Exhibit 5, pages 47-50.

34 Exhibit 5, pages 52-53.

35 Exhibit 5, page 56; Exhibit 1, image 113.

36 Exhibit 5, page 58; Exhibit 1, images 112 and 117.

37 Exhibit 5, page 59.

a probable consequence that that stupefaction could well occur and that the ulterior intent to commit an imprisonable sexual offence is established.


[219] In evidence [complainant 9] referred to an occasion, established to be 28 November 2015, when she and [complainant 8] were at MH seated at the bar. She believed one of the defendants was behind the bar. Free drinks were given and her next recollection is waking up the next day vomiting. She was not intoxicated and nor had she had blackouts from alcohol in the past. She does not vomit after drinking alcohol. Her symptoms were different to an alcohol hangover. She considered at the time that her drink may have been spiked and discussed that with [complainant 8].

[220] In evidence [complainant 8] referred to the evening at MH when [complainant 9] was drugged. They were sitting together on bar stools. Both Jaz brothers were present at MH drinking with friends. Drinks, possibly vodka, were offered to [complainant 8] and [complainant 9]. [Complainant 8] did not consume her drink but passed it to [complainant 9] who drank it. Within five or 10 minutes [complainant 9] collapsed to the floor. She was helped outside and could not sit properly in a car. She was helped from the car to her house. She was floppy and mumbled something about being drugged. [Complainant 8] was sure that [complainant 9] was not drunk and that it was not alcohol intoxication that caused her to fall to the floor. She said [complainant 9] was violently ill throughout the night. She knows that [complainant 9] does not vomit after drinking alcohol.

[221] She was shown an SMS message exchange between herself and Davide Jaz on 30 November 2015.38 In that exchange she says that she thinks [complainant 9]’s drink was spiked and disputes Davide Jaz saying that she was simply drunk. [Complainant 8] says in the SMS exchange that she was sober enough to drive home and that [complainant 9] herself is an experienced drinker and has never seen her sick on alcohol.

[222] The exchange not only establishes the date of the incident, which post-dates the various propensity items relied on by the Crown, but is an admissible consistent

38 Exhibit 4.

statement as the tone of the challenge to both complainants in cross-examination was that [complainant 9] was not drugged but was intoxicated on alcohol.


[223] In cross-examination by Ms Aickin, on behalf of Roberto Jaz, it was put to both complainants that [complainant 9] collapsed at MH simply because she had had too much to drink. That was rejected by both. Their rejection is the evidence. It was also suggested in a vague and peripheral way that perhaps an Asian man who was drinking at MH this evening may have had something to do with the drugging of [complainant 9]. Defence Exhibit A (R Jaz) was produced. It is a bundle of photographs including images of [complainant 8] and what appears to be her standing next to a man of Asian extraction. [Complainant 9] and [complainant 8] are also in a group photographs which include Davide Jaz.

[224] If the reference to the Asian man and the production of the photographs was intended to raise a reasonable possibility that the unknown Asian man had something to do with [complainant 9]’s collapse and subsequent symptoms, that failed. It was not directly put to the complainants that the Asian man drugged [complainant 9]. It was an invitation for me to speculate which I will not do.

[225] The cross-examination by Mr Matthews on behalf of Danny Jaz was directed at defending the charges of indecently assaulting [complainant 8], to which he subsequently pleaded guilty.

[226] I consider that there is a strong circumstantial case for conviction of both defendants on Charges 7 and 8.

[227] I was satisfied that:

relating to them where patrons and staff are stupified and, in some cases, sexually offended against;


(b) The Jaz brothers formed a common purpose to stupefy either or both [complainant 9] and [complainant 8] to facilitate sexual offending;

(c) One of the brothers is the principal offender and it was a known probable consequence to them both that in pursuit of the common purpose that stupefaction could well occur;

(d) The intended stupefaction was to induce in the complainants a receptiveness to engaging in sexual activity which the brothers knew would not otherwise be engaged in;

(e) There was an attempt to stupefy [complainant 8] by involuntary consumption of a stupefying substance placed in a drink;

(f) [Complainant 9] was stupefied by involuntary consumption of a stupefying substance placed in a drink.

[228] For these charges and all charges which require proof of stupefaction I considered all applicable evidence including the expert evidence, propensity evidence as it applies to a particular defendant and the evidence of complainants and supporting evidence in determining if stupefaction is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[229] Charges 7 and 8 were proved beyond reasonable doubt and both defendants were convicted.

Charge 13 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Stupefying [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 14 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Sexual violation of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 15 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Making an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 16 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Sexual violation of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 17 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Sexual violation of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 18 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Rape of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)

Charge 19 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])

Rape of [complainant 1] (2 April 2017)


[230] The Crown identifies a principal offender in each charge alleging that the other defendants are parties.

[231] [Complainant 1] gave evidence by EVI and orally in Court. In her EVI recorded on 7 September 2018 she said that on 2 April 2017 she was out with friends and was due to fly to the UK the next day. She and her group ended up at MH. By then she was an ex-employee of MH having recently resigned from her bartending position there, working while a student.

[232] Roberto Jaz approached her and shouted a drink saying “we’ll scull it” which they did. He then asked to meet her outside but [complainant 1] says that she was particularly intoxicated at that point and declined to go outside with Roberto Jaz.

[233] She said that after having the drink that was given to her by Roberto Jaz “things became a little muddy” and she recalls Danny Jaz taking her by the hand, leading her out of MH and taking her down the street to Venuti. He led her to the kitchen area where lines of something were set out. Roberto Jaz was there with other men. She was told that everyone was “doing a line” and said that she had never really done it before but was told that she would be helped to do it. Her recollection is that Roberto Jaz helped her.

[234] They all did a line after which a man called [name deleted] was asked to leave the restaurant.

[235] She describes the effect of the drugs in this way:

Um, I remember my mind went from being cloudy as hell walking from Mama Hooch to Venuti, just completely out of it, to doing that line and just feeling really alert and just very, like, present.


[236] She recalls being placed on a kitchen bench top by Roberto Jaz at the time the man [name deleted] was told to leave. Danny Jaz also left and locked the restaurant door. Roberto Jaz began kissing her.

[237] She describes herself as “hammered” and in shock as to what was going on but considers that she was not in any state to stop it. She recalls being moved to the restaurant area and her next memory is being filmed performing oral sex on Roberto Jaz. Her impression of filming came from flashes that stopped and then started again.

[238] She then recalls Roberto Jaz placing his hand into her vagina, her performing oral sex on [Sam Jones] and feeling thirsty and asking for water.

[239] She has a recollection that Roberto Jaz had sexual intercourse with her but it could have been either him or [Sam Jones]. At some point she was put back into a dress and then collected by Danny Jaz who took her away from the restaurant. Her impression was that his return was “almost like an arrangement”. She recalls being walked to the nearby casino with [Sam Jones]. Eventually she was put in a taxi and went home.

[240] She noticed the next day that she had heavy bruising on her breasts and took photographs on return to the UK.39

[241] Referring to walking from MH to Venuti with Danny Jaz, she says her mind was cloudy but after taking a line at Venuti she became alert and “very like, present”. She says that throughout the sexual activity at Venuti she was asking herself “can I even say no to what’s happening”.

39 Exhibit 1, image 124.


[242] She says:

I am kind of, I am going with it but not comfortably, not comfortably at all. Um, and I was that intoxicated. And it just got worse, I was almost like, it was almost like after doing the line I was sat there, you know, and I, and I kind of had an idea of what was going on, and then it just went bam and everything just became an absolute train wreck. Every single sense was, like, so heightened and – but it wasn’t like my head was clear.


[243] Later she refers to being confused as to what was going on saying:

So being in a scenario like that, you think you can just turn around and be like, nah, sorry, I’m out, but you can’t stop. You have either got to roll with it or freeze. Because if you don’t roll with it and that door is locked you are going to end up doing it anyway.


[244] She expands upon that further in the interview when saying:

I just didn’t feel like I was connected in the moment at all. Um, the drugs kind of make you, whatever they gave me, it kind of made me normalise it as well. Like, ok, this is happening. Um, but I definitely was not in a position to consent, there’s there’s no way.


[245] She mentions being in touch with Roberto Jaz from the UK concerned about being filmed, saying that she was not sure of exactly what happened that evening but if there were films asked that they be deleted. He said they would be.

[246] In the UK she consulted a doctor whose clinical notes are included in the Section 9 document signed by counsel.

[247] About a year after the events of April 2017 and when back in New Zealand she made notes of her memory as to what occurred.40 She did that “to get it out of my head and onto paper to make it real”. She gave the notes for safe-keeping to her now [employer ] in Christchurch. She also retained the photograph of her bruised breasts.

[248] She came forward to the police because when back in New Zealand she saw an article in The Star newspaper41 about drink spiking at MH followed by sexual assault at Venuti. She said:

40 Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 1, image 138.

41 Exhibit 1, pages 231-233.

So the second I saw that and saw that it was the exact same scenario that I had been through I wanted to speak up.


[249] She was given the name of another person, [name deleted], who was also an alleged victim of drink spiking at MH and communicated with her but never met her in person. They did not discuss what had happened to them before [complainant 1] went to the police.

[250] As to her employment at MH she said the atmosphere was “all very sexual and weird”. The brothers would slap her backside and make sexual comments. She got to the point that she placed bottle caps in her back pockets to deter the slapping. She was not interested in any sexual contact with her employers.

[251] In oral evidence she named the friends she was with at MH on the evening as [four names deleted]. She said that [one of the friends] had put her in touch with the person [who she spoke to about drink spiking at MH]. She referred to the notes she had made and which were held by [her employer] as her recollection of what occurred on the night. The document is intitled “clarity” and given the challenge in cross- examination is an admissible prior consistent statement. It is exactly that, consistent with her EVI account.

[252] In cross-examination by Ms Aickin there was a suggestion that she had some sexual interest in Roberto Jaz but she denied that.

[253] She acknowledged drinking before getting to MH and said that she had only ever used the drug cannabis in the past, and at the most only ever five times.

[254] The tone of Ms Aickin’s questions were consistent with putting the case. Propositions were put and invariably met with denials or that she was “not sure”. The propositions were not accepted. No evidence was called to support the propositions. The evidence is her answers.

[255] It was suggested by Ms Aickin that her only concern after the event was whether she had been videoed, the implication being that any sexual contact was

consensual. She denied consenting to the sexual activity and expressly denied that she consented to being filmed.


[256] She also denied that the doctor in England had put the idea of sexual assault into her head, saying that all the doctor did was validate what she herself had thought had occurred to her. She gave a credible answer to a challenge based on the doctor’s notes which record that nothing happened.

[257] She told the doctor of past assaults which had been reported to the police “but nothing happened”. She said she was referring to police inaction which is the objective meaning of her words in any event. She says her words to the doctor are not an admission that nothing non-consensual happened at Venuti. I accept that.

[258] It was put to her directly that she went to Venuti by arrangement to take drugs with Roberto Jaz. She denied that. Her denial is the evidence. She accepted that she took the line at Venuti voluntarily but with Roberto Jaz’s assistance, the apparent suggestion being that any stupefaction was self-inflicted. She responded that she was “not in my right mind” before going to Venuti.

[259] As will be seen I find that the Jaz brothers agreed to stupefy [complainant 1] and that the drink supplied by Roberto Jaz at MH contained a stupefying substance. [Complainant 1]’s reference to not being in her right mind after taking that drink is entirely consistent with her evidence and recollections and I give no weight to any suggestion that she voluntarily consumed the line at Venuti. The Crown particularised this charge by an unknown substance in her drink or in powder form. On the evidence of [complainant 1] either of those options results in stupefaction which I have found proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Jaz brothers planned and succeeded in stupefying her.

[260] Ms Aickin then referred to the transcript of the oral exchanges during the recorded sexual activity at Venuti taken by Roberto Jaz over an hour and a quarter.42 The transcript was put to [complainant 1] verbatim.43 She accepted that the words

42 Exhibit 17 (video recording).

43 Exhibit 18 (transcript):

[Complainant 1] did not wish to view the video recording made by Roberto Jaz. It was played in

were hers and that they would appear to suggest willing participation and consent but expressly denied consent. It was again put to her that she went there to take drugs with Roberto Jaz and then after that “things got out of hand and went from one thing to another” and whatever occurred was entirely consensual. She denied that and denied also that the bruises on her breasts were from vigorous sexual activity.


[261] Ms Aitken asked questions about the door lock at Venuti. [Witness G] and other staff members confirmed that, consistent with fire safety requirements, the external doors cannot be locked from the inside. The purpose of that evidence is to impeach [complainant 1], (and [complainant 4] dealt with below) who say they were locked in during the assaults. Both were or had been staff and would be aware of the configuration of the locks but I give that no weight whatsoever when assessing their credibility or reliability.

[262] The objective knowledge of a sober employee and the subjective perception of a drugged and stupefied victim are quite different.

[263] Mr Matthews put in cross-examination that Danny Jaz did not take [complainant 1] to Venuti but she was clear that he did. Her answer is the evidence.

[264] Mr Lange cross-examined on behalf of [Sam Jones]. [Complainant 1] confirmed her level of intoxication by alcohol when getting to MH around 2:30 am. She confirmed that she told her UK doctor that she had little memory of what occurred but said that as time went by some memories came back.

[265] She said that the transcript read to her by Ms Aickin did not refresh her memory in Court, and nor did it refresh her memory at the time she was first told of its content. She confirmed, however, that what she was told of the video content was consistent with the few memories that she did have.

[266] As to her memory, she says she has a perfect recall of everything that happened up to the point she was given a drink to skull by Roberto Jaz.

court before she was called. I ruled that counsel could not ask [complainant 1] to see the recording in cross-examination but could refer to its content and quote from the oral transcript.


[267] She denied that she consented to everything that occurred but now simply regrets what happened at Venuti confirming that at the time she felt she had no choice but to participate. She agrees she was concerned about the filming and wanted it deleted but that does not mean that she consented to either the filming or the sexual activity.

[268] It was put to her by Mr Lange that there was a discussion at Venuti with Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones] about having a threesome. She denies that, saying that she did not consent to what occurred. Her denial is the evidence.

[269] [Witness M], who was with [complainant 1] on the evening, gave evidence. She was referred to messaging between herself and [complainant 1] on 6 April after [complainant 1]’s return to the UK. [Complainant 1] had cut and pasted her communications with Roberto Jaz and sent them to [witness M].44 They are consistent with her lack of recall as to what happened, and that she suspected being videotaped.

[270] [Witness N] gave evidence that [complainant 1] told her that she felt she may have been in a “three way” but was unsure where that occurred. [Complainant 1] told her that she was not sure what had happened and that she thought it was at Venuti with Roberto Jaz and another man. She recalls [complainant 1] going to the UK that day.

[271] She received a Snapchat photograph of [complainant 1]’s breasts from the UK. Cut and pasted messaging between [complainant 1] and Roberto Jaz were also sent to her.45

[272] She referred to the evening before [complainant 1] went to the UK and that when [complainant 1] returned to New Zealand she was having flashbacks, was anxious and frightened. She said that [complainant 1] told her she knew Roberto Jaz was involved but not who else. [Complainant 1] told [witness M] she did not consent to anything. She said that she spoke to [complainant 1] after media articles in 2018 but denied that it was after that that [complainant 1] said there was a lack of consent. She said that [complainant 1] had told her before the articles were published that she

44 Exhibit 1, images 127-130.

45 Exhibit 1, images 139-144.

did not consent and although the cut and pasted communications expressed a concern about being filmed, [complainant 1] had other concerns as well.


[273] The FWS of [complainant 1’s employer], was read. She recalls that [complainant 1] told her that Roberto Jaz and his [family member] were at Venuti when Danny Jaz took her there.

[274] [Sam Jones] was interviewed by [Senior Constable ZD] at the Papanui Police Station. The interview was recorded by EVI46 in which [Sam Jones] says that the activity at Venuti with [complainant 1] was fully consensual.

[275] Throughout the interview the Constable repeatedly denies or ignores [Sam Jones]’s right to counsel. The interview was clearly objectionable on that basis but was introduced into evidence by Mr McRae at the request of Mr Lange. The interview was entirely exculpatory and could justifiably need not have been played as part of the Crown case.

[276] However, Mr McRae agreed to do so at Mr Lange’s request. Other prosecutors may not have agreed but Mr McRae’s agreement to play [Sam Jones]’s interview as part of the Crown case is typical of the fairness with which he conducted the case. He is a fine example of a prosecutor acting as a “minister of justice” and is to be commended for that.

Charge 13


[277] I am quite satisfied that, consistent with their propensity to target staff for sexual purposes and to drug females to facilitate sexual offending, the Jaz brothers agreed to drug and stupefy [complainant 1]. They knew she was leaving for the UK the next day and took the opportunity to stupefy her for sexual purposes. They knew she was uninterested in them sexually. [Complainant 1] is the subject of the WhatsApp conversation referred to at [199] above47 where she was, in anyone’s language,

46 Exhibit 48.

47 Exhibit E, pages 60 and 129.

regarded by them as fair game. That belief was put into effect by the Jaz Brothers in April 2017.


[278] On this charge and all charges concerning [complainant 1] I take into account the expert evidence of Professor Drummer and Roberto Jaz’s proven propensity to take females to Venuti for sexual purposes. He drugged [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] there. He has filmed sexual activity there. [Complainant 1] drew a diagram during her EVI48 showing the same location.

[279] I take into account the drugging and sexual offending caried out by Danny Jaz and the Jaz brothers knowledge of stupefying drugs.

[280] Roberto Jaz provided a drink which contained an unknown stupefying substance and Danny Jaz led [complainant 1] to the restaurant. Roberto Jaz was present when further drugs were taken. Danny Jaz collected [complainant 1] from the restaurant and took her away after she had engaged in sexual activity with Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones].

[281] The Jaz brothers formed an unlawful common purpose to sexually offend against [complainant 1] and I am in no doubt that the elements of Charge 13 have been made out against them. Roberto Jaz administered the drugs with the intention that it would produce in [complainant 1] a receptiveness to engaging in sexual activity with him and others and which he knew [complainant 1] would not otherwise have engaged in. [Complainant 1] did not take the drugs voluntarily with the awareness that it was likely to lead to sexual activity with Roberto Jaz or others.

[282] Danny Jaz agreed to help his brother to achieve their goal and did so by delivering [complainant 1] to Venuti where his brother was waiting. He knew it was a probable consequence that stupefaction would occur in carrying out the common purpose. He came and took her away and I accept that her perception that was by arrangement is correct.

[283] It is for that reason that the Jaz brothers were convicted of Charge 13.

48 Exhibit 19.


[284] However, there is no satisfactory proof that [Sam Jones] was part of the common purpose or participated in the stupefaction of [complainant 1]. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. The finder of fact must be sure. Nothing less is sufficient in a criminal court. Suspicion or probability are never enough.

[285] As I will refer to, media commentary and quoted opinion have speculated about the not guilty verdicts for [Sam Jones] and expressed concern about those verdicts.

[286] It is one thing for media and commentators to indulge in speculation and express opinions on limited factual knowledge. It is another thing to act judicially and objectively reach conclusions by applying the law to all of the facts. The plain reality is that the evidence fell well short of proof beyond reasonable doubt of [Sam Jones]’s guilt on any of the charges concerning [complainant 1]. To convict him would require speculation about the facts and/or prejudice resulting in guilt by association. No finder of fact, be it judge or jury, can ever reason in that way.

Charge 14


[287] Charge 14 alleges sexual violation by the connection between [complainant 1]’s mouth and the penis of Roberto Jaz. That clearly occurred as evidenced in the recordings made by Roberto Jaz. It occurred in circumstances where Roberto Jaz knew that [complainant 1] had been stupefied for the purposes of sexual contact and that she was incapable of consenting to that contact. She said she did not consent and there was no reasonable basis for him to believe she did.

[288] The evidence of [complainant 1] is consistent throughout. The memories that she does have are consistently recorded in her evidence and prior consistent statements. Roberto Jaz is the principal offender in Charge 14 and Danny Jaz knew that sexual violation could well occur after his delivery of [complainant 1] to Venuti for his brother to engage in sexual activity with her. This charged was proved against them both.

[289] [Sam Jones] is in a different position. He is not linked to the stupefaction of [complainant 1] and his belief in consent expressed in the DVD interview is supported

by what I saw in the recordings made by Roberto Jaz and the oral transcript from those recordings.


[290] [Complainant 1] engages in oral and vaginal sex with both men and on an objective assessment does so willingly. She says things that are consistent with willing participation and consent such as asking Roberto Jaz to adjust his position while giving him oral sex. She says early in the recording “I like to get beaten, I like to dress up, I wish you could see me dressed up ... full suspenders and stuff ... like see through wear”. Later she says “I’m pretty wet”.

[291] She asks [Sam Jones] at one point if he “needs a blowie” and after 30 minutes of sexual engagement says “can somebody choke me a little harder please”. Soon after that she asks to be choked again.

[292] Nearly an hour into events she says “you guys better be making me come soon” and when asked near the end of the episode by [Sam Jones] if “you want me to come all over your titties” she says “yeah of course.” When [Sam Jones] struggles to achieve that she says “Huh, It’s ok”.

[293] Although the Crown has excluded [complainant 1]’s consent, [Sam Jones]’s reasonable belief in consent has not been excluded beyond reasonable doubt; a fundamental requirement in proving sexual violation. From the images recorded on the videos and [complainant 1]’s words referred to above there are clear and reasonable grounds for [Sam Jones] to believe that [complainant 1] is consenting to all that was happening to and with her.

[294] The Crown’s failure to exclude reasonable grounds for his expressed belief in consent resulted in [Sam Jones]’s acquittal on this charge and all charges to which he is an alleged principal or party.

[295] In his submissions for permanent suppression of [Sam Jones]’s name Mr Lange has drawn my attention to media coverage referring to concern about his client’s acquittal on those charges. Comment has been sought or received by media from

persons including the legal profession on the not guilty verdicts for [Sam Jones], before release of this judgement.


[296] Despite media willingness to be involved in speculative comment about the not guilty verdicts for [Sam Jones] and to refer to the facts concerning the charges involving [complainant 1], none of what was said by her and quoted from the transcript of the recordings made by Roberto Jaz in [290]-[292] is referred to in those media reports. Media were present in court and have first hand knowledge of the facts and have access to the court record and exhibits. They knew of the comments made by [complainant 1] in the recordings made by Roberto Jaz and printed in the transcript produced as an exhibit.

[297] It is hardly fair and balanced reporting to seek or receive, and then publish, speculative opinion about the basis of a judgment or decision without at least attempting to provide an accurate factual account. This case has excited, and will continue to excite, acrimony and adverse social media commentary against those charged including Mr Lange’s client. Media rightly stand on their rights as surrogates of the public but that carries with it a duty to fully inform the public and commentators to dampen rash opinion and not to fuel it.

[298] Mr Lange points out a particularly serious media error which wrongly reports that the WhatsApp message of January 2016 referred to at [197] occurred the day before the offending against [complainant 1]. The report says the “rape was planned the day before” and is in context of reporting expressed concern about [Sam Jones]’s acquittal.

[299] [Sam Jones] was not a party to that WhatsApp message which was a full year before the offending.

[300] The error was no doubt inadvertent but that is not the point. Media have a duty to report accurately. Errors can have significant impact on the rights and lives of citizens and wrongly infect public opinion.

[301] The matters raised by Mr Lange concerning unbalanced reporting added to his client’s already strong application for permanent suppression which was granted.49

Charge 16


[302] Charge 16 alleges sexual violation by digital penetration of [complainant 1] by Roberto Jaz as the principal offender. For the same above reasons, Roberto Jaz and Danny Jaz were convicted on Charge 16 and [Sam Jones] was acquitted.

Charge 17


[303] Charge 17 alleges sexual violation of [complainant 1] by connection between her mouth and the penis of [Sam Jones]. [Sam Jones] is the alleged principal offender. His belief in consent was reasonable and has not been excluded. There is therefore no principal offence to which Roberto Jaz and Danny Jaz can be parties. All defendants were acquitted of this charge.

Charge 18


[304] Charge 18 alleges sexual violation by rape of [complainant 1] by the insertion of Roberto Jaz’s penis into her vagina. Roberto Jaz is the principal offender. It was a known probable consequence in the mind of Danny Jaz that rape could well occur. The Jaz brothers were convicted but [Sam Jones] was acquitted on the basis that the Crown has not excluded his reasonable belief in [complainant 1]’s consent to what occurred with Roberto Jaz.

Charge 19


[305] Charge 19 alleges sexual violation by rape by the insertion of [Sam Jones]’s penis into the vagina of [complainant 1]. [Sam Jones] is the alleged principal offender but as the Crown cannot exclude his reasonable belief in her consent he must be acquitted as must the Jaz brothers as there is no principal offence to which they can be parties.

49 See my discharge and suppression ruling of 21 July 2021.

Charge 15


[306] Charge 15 alleges that Roberto Jaz made an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1]. The recordings, produced as Exhibit 17, are a series of clips taken over a period of one and a quarter hours. In her EVI, [complainant 1] says that she was aware that there may have been filming given her recollection of flashes from time to time. Subsequently in exchanges with Roberto Jaz she expresses concern that she may have been filmed and requests him to delete any recordings. He lies to her that he had deleted them.50

[307] In the oral transcript taken from the recordings she asks Roberto Jaz if what is occurring is private. He says “very private” confirming on a scale of one to ten “it’s a zero, that’s how private it is”.

[308] [Complainant 1] said in evidence that she did not consent to the recording and confirmed that, at best, she had a perception there may have been recording as a result of lights flashing from time to time.

[309] In her note given to [her employer]51 she refers to clear camera flashes that felt around 10 seconds long at a time “almost like a Snapchat video”.

[310] [Complainant 1] does not distinctly acknowledge an understanding that she was being filmed, notwithstanding that was her perception at the time. Her subsequent communications with Roberto Jaz enquire if filming took place, saying that she “felt at the time I was being videotaped”.52 She then says if there was filming she would like it to be deleted.

[311] The elements of the offence require that an intimate visual recording be made without the knowledge or consent of the person the subject of the recording.

[312] In her state of stupefaction, which I have found to be proved, [complainant 1] has a perception of being filmed but is not sure. All of her recollections and

50 Exhibit 1, image 144.

51 Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 1, image 138.

52 Exhibit 1, image 142.

communications are consistent with that. She denies consenting to being filmed, but even allowing for the possibility she may have been aware of being filmed she was in no position to consent.


[313] [Complainant 1] was not in a position to make an informed and rational decision to consent to anything that occurred, including Roberto Jaz filming the sexual activity, and he knew it. Her consent is excluded and the elements of the offence are clearly made out and for that reason Roberto Jaz was convicted of Charge 15.

[314] I take into account that the recording of [complainant 1] is consistent with Roberto Jaz’s proven tendency to make intimate visual recordings. In addition, I am satisfied that he has a propensity to do so without consent, or at least indifferent to consent. I detail my conclusions in that regard below when addressing Charges 27 and 45-47.

[315] I cannot conclude that the making if the recordings was a known probable consequence in the mind of Danny Jaz who was acquitted of this charge.

[316] If [Sam Jones] knew of the recording, which it appears he may, his reasonable belief in [complainant 1]’s consent to what was happening eliminates proof of this charge against him as a party to Roberto Jaz’s offending. He too was acquitted.

Charge 20 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 22] (on or about 25 June 2017)


[317] For the reasons referred to above I have not accepted the Crown submission that the Jaz brothers formed a common purpose to stupefy patrons. On charges of stupefying and disabling I require an evidential link between one or both. For this charge there is no such link. Although I accept that [complainant 22] was stupefied there is no sufficient proof that either of the brothers were responsible. For that reason they were both found not guilty of this charge.

[318] It is convenient at this point to refer also to all other disabling charges where both brothers have been acquitted rather than address those charges sequentially.

[319] The further charges of disabling, where in each case there is proof of stupefaction but where both brothers have been acquitted for the same reasons as Charge 20 are:

Charge 35 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 23] (on or about 4 November 2017

Charge 43 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 24] (between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2018)53

Charge 69 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 6] (on or about 5 August 2018)

Charge 70 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 7] (on or about 11 August 2018)

Charge 72 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 25] (on or about 25 August 2018)

Charge 73 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 11] (on or about 1 September 2018)

Charge 74 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 17] (on or about 1 September 2018)

Charge 75 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 26] (on or about 8 September 2018)

Charge 80 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 27] (on or about 23 November 2018

Charge 21 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 18] (on or about 29 July 2017)

53 I have referred above to being satisfied that in all cases where stupefaction is an element that stupefaction is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The only exception is Charge 43 concerning [complainant 24] who accepted that the symptoms that she experienced may have been as a result of alcohol only.


[320] [Complainant 18] was a regular at MH with her friends, including [complainant 28]. She confirms being able to “jump the queue” and getting free drinks. She knew Danny Jaz but as time went on his approach to her became increasingly sexualised to the point that he fondled her breasts. He pleaded guilty to that (Charge 9).

[321] She recalls going to the toilet on one occasion with her friend [complainant 28]. She felt strange and incoherent. She had been drinking but was not intoxicated. She had trouble speaking and to control her movements and at one point argued with [complainant 28] which was entirely out of character. She lost part of her memory and says that her last recall is getting a free drink from Danny Jaz. She was adamant she was not hung over from alcohol.

[322] When cross-examined it was suggested she may have put her drink down, the implication being that someone else had spiked it, but she denied that.

[323] [Complainant 28] gave evidence confirming her regular attendance at MH with [complainant 18] and others. Danny Jaz was friendly and gave them free drinks. On the particular occasion in July 2017 she recalls [complainant 18] going the bathroom and Danny Jaz quietly saying to her “we need to get [complainant 18] on some gear”. She reported that to [complainant 18] in the bathroom who disclosed that Danny Jaz had grabbed her breasts and pubic area on the dance floor.

[324] [Complainant 28] referred to [complainant 18] and herself having a confrontation at MH after which [complainant 28] went back to the bar and received a free drink from Danny Jaz. She has no recollection of anything after that.

[325] On that evening she too was groped by Danny Jaz who has pleaded guilty to indecent assault (Charge 23).

[326] She said that it was entirely out of character for [complainant 18] to be aggressive in the way she was on this evening and says that her own memory was clear until the time she got the free drink from Danny Jaz. Her next memory is waking up in bed with no recall of how she got there. She had never had a previous blackout when drinking and never loses her memory when drinking.

[327] In cross-examination she confirmed that she and [complainant 18] had been drinking before going to MH and puts herself 4-5/10 intoxicated.

[328] She categorically denied that she had misheard Danny Jaz’s words about [complainant 18] and that he actually said “does she get on some gear”. She rejected that. Her rejection is the evidence.

[329] This charge was proved against Danny Jaz. [Complainant 18] was stupefied. Danny Jaz provided her with the stupefying drink containing an unknown substance. He also made reference to providing [complainant 18] with “gear” which the drug expert says is a reference to illicit drugs. Danny Jaz was convicted of this charge but Roberto Jaz was acquitted on my rejection of the Crown’s submission of an unlawful common purpose. There is no evidence to link him to the stupefaction of [complainant 18].

Charge 22 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 28] (on or about 29 July 2017)


[330] This charge was proved against Danny Jaz. I accept the evidence of [complainant 28], referred to above, that she was stupefied by Danny Jaz who gave her a drink containing an unknown substance. He showed a clear sexual interest in both [complainant 18] and [complainant 28] and has pleaded guilty to sexually offending against them both. Their evidence of receiving a drink from him after which they were stupefied is entirely credible and effectively unchallenged. There is no proof against Roberto Jaz who was acquitted.

Charge 26 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 20] (on or about 18 August 2018)


[331] [Complainant 20] turned [age deleted] [shortly] before her visit to MH on this occasion. She and [her friend] had been drinking before going to Aikmans Bar and then moving to MH. The attraction was skipping the queue and getting free drinks.

[332] She has very little recall of what happened on this night. She cannot recall if she avoided the queue or got free drinks and her last memory is leaving the previous

bar and then being in an ambulance. She said she may have been 5/10 intoxicated when leaving Aikmans Bar and was coherent and happy. She does not even recall seeing Danny Jaz at MH.


[333] She had not taken any drugs this evening and is adamant that what happened to her was not down to alcohol. She had blurry vision in the morning and felt “out of her body”. She only lasted at work for two hours whereas she would have no difficulty going to work with a hangover.

[334] Other witnesses gave evidence. One witness said she found [complainant 20] lying on the footpath, obviously very intoxicated.

[335] [Her friend] came upon them. She had not been drinking that night but had gone to Aikmans Bar with [complainant 20] and then on to MH. They were both sober when they got there and at one point [complainant 20] told her that she had been getting free drinks from Danny Jaz.

[336] She then lost touch with [complainant 20] until she came upon her on the footpath. An ambulance was called and the police arrived. She went with [complainant 20] in the ambulance. She was aware of [complainant 20]’s drinking habits and has never seen her like this on alcohol alone.

[337] She said that at the point she lost contact with [complainant 20] inside MH she would put her at 4/10 intoxicated and it was only 30 minutes after that that she observed her on the footpath in a ball and unconscious and then taken away in an ambulance.

[338] The Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that [complainant 20] was stupefied. Despite a lack of memory of what occurred, which in itself is consistent with stupefaction, her reference to [her friend] getting free drinks from Danny Jaz satisfies the necessary proof that it was he who stupefied her. Danny Jaz was convicted. His brother Roberto Jaz was acquitted in the absence of a proven unlawful common purpose and evidence linking him to the stupefaction of [complainant 20].

Charge 32 (Danny Jaz)

Stupefying SB (on or about 14 October 2017)


[339] SB’s EVI was played and a transcript provided but not produced. She arrived at MH around midnight on 14 October 2017, skipped the queue and went straight to the dance floor. Danny Jaz offered her and her friend, [witness H], a free drink at the bar. The friend [witness H] gave most of her drink to SB who topped her own drink up and drank it.

[340] She has a recollection of going out for cigarettes but after that recalls very little.

[341] She does, however, remember following Danny Jaz to a toilet in a next door building which subsequent evidence established that the Jaz family had access to for storage purposes. He had his jeans down. She thinks hers were down also. He sexually assaulted her and forced oral sex. Danny Jaz has pleaded guilty to Charges 33 and 34, sexual violation respectively by digital penetration and oral contact.

[342] She admitted to being intoxicated when she arrived at MH which she puts at 7/10. She says it was Danny Jaz who provided the drinks for herself and [witness H] and poured them himself and that after the trip for cigarettes she got a second drink from him. It was after that drink that things get hazy. She is sure the visit to the adjoining premises with Danny Jaz was after the second drink.

[343] She has a vague recollection of being in an uber but does not recall getting home. She said she had never experienced memory blanks before. Although she had used MDMA in the past she had not used it that night saying that MDMA does not cause memory loss, it just makes her happy and friendly.

[344] When she woke up she had vomited on the floor which is something that does not occur with alcohol.

[345] She was cross-examined on what were said to be inconsistencies. In particular that she said it was the bartender in her EVI, and to the police before being interviewed, that gave her the first drink. She sought to clarify that by saying her

memory had recovered to the point that she is certain it was Danny Jaz who gave her and her friend [witness H] the drinks at the bar.


[346] In cross-examination Mr Harré addressed the timing of SB’s recollection of the second drink but did not challenge the fact of the second drink. It seemed to me to be clear that the signs of stupefaction and the sexual violations to which Danny Jaz pleaded guilty took place after he had provided the second drink. SB said at that time “things got hazy”. I therefore spoke to Mr Harré54 suggesting he may wish to cover the point with the witness.

[347] He chose not to but continued his cross-examination on other issues. The end result is that the witness’ evidence is unchallenged on a significant point. She said on returning from getting cigarettes Danny Jaz gave her a drink after which “things got hazy” and then she was sexually assaulted by him. Irrespective of the fact that there was no previous mention of the second drink the unchallenged evidence is that there was a second drink given by Danny Jaz.

[348] Mr Harré put to SB that the vomiting and memory blanks, and her condition the morning after, were as a direct result of alcohol. She did not accept that. Her answer is the evidence.

[349] A number of formal written statements (FWS) were read in support of the evidence of SB. The FWS of her friend [witness H] adds nothing. The FWS of her friend [complainant 29] was also read. Danny Jaz offended against [complainant 29] in the MH toilets the previous week and has pleaded guilty to four charges of indecent assault (Charges 28-31).

[350] [Complainant 29] confirmed the group were drinking before going to MH on 14 October and that the 11 cans of pre-mix drink consumed by SB was normal for her. [Complainant 29] described her as someone who can hold her alcohol. No illegal drugs were taken by the group that night.

54 NOE, page 730.


[351] She spoke to SB the next day who said that she was cleaning up vomit in her room and was unsure of what happened the night before. She did, however, have a recollection of Danny Jaz taking her to “another room and that he made her suck his dick” but apart from that she has very little memory. She was equally unsure as to whether there had been sexual intercourse and SB’s friends advised her to see a doctor and take a morning after pill.

[352] [Complainant 29] said that after a night’s drinking SB is normal, never vomits and does not get hangovers. She commented also that she always remembers her nights out and what had happened. SB was scared that on this occasion she could not remember what had occurred.

[353] The FWS of [witness I] was read. In October 2017 she was a 20 year old student and was flatting with SB. She said that on the morning of 14 October 2017 she came home to find SB distressed, confused, slurring her words with vomit next to her bed. She said she was slow and uncoordinated, had been crying, and had red puffy eyes. She was distressed, not knowing what happened the previous night. She said this was quite untypical of how alcohol might affect SB.

[354] [Complainant 29] and others took SB to the police to make a complaint. She was examined by a doctor at the Cambridge Clinic and her urine was tested.

[355] The s 9 admission records under the heading “Sophie Brown”:55
  1. In 2017 Canterbury Health Laboratories were performing urine drug screening on a SciEx 3200 LC triple quad mass spectrometer. The laboratory was actively monitoring channels for MDMA, MDA and ketamine as part of their routine drug screen profile. These compounds were run on their QC samples with every batch of urine.
  2. A list of all substances tested for by the machine in 2017 accompanies this document annexed page 1.

Pages 1, 2 and 3 annexed to the s 9 admission detail an extensive list of drugs targeted by the mass spectrometer.

55 After the hearing and delivery of verdicts SB applied to lift the statutory name suppression to which she was entitled. Having considered the evidence in support of her application and the submissions made on her behalf by media counsel I was satisfied her application should be granted. She has subsequently spoken publicly about what occurred to her at MH and her name and photograph have been used in media reports.


[356] Frankly it is unclear to me why that document is included as I do not consider it to be at all relevant to this charge. To the contrary the document establishes that many stupefying drugs were not tested for. The only new psycho-active drug that was tested for is BZP and there is no test for GHB.

[357] The Crown has proved stupefaction beyond reasonable doubt by an unknown substance placed into SB’s drink by Danny Jaz for the purpose of facilitating sexual offending. The elements of this charge are proved against him but not against Roberto Jaz.

Charge 37 (Roberto Jaz)

Stupefying [complainant 2] (between 1 January 2018 and 30 April 2018)

Charge 38 (Roberto Jaz)

Sexual violation of [complainant 2] (between 1 January 2018 and 30 April 2018)

Charge 42 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz, [Sam Jones])

Stupefying [complainant 2] (between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2018)


[358] [Complainant 2] and her friends, including [complainant 24], were regulars at MH. They would skip the queue and would receive free drinks from both Jaz brothers. She went with Roberto Jaz to Venuti with her friend [complainant 24] on invitation for a drink on one occasion. They had a drink then went back to MH. She went back there alone with Roberto Jaz on a later occasion. He offered her a line of white powder but she declined.

[359] On a further occasion she was in the toilet at MH when Danny Jaz came in and kissed and groped her. He has pleaded guilty to indecent assault (Charge 24).

[360] On a later occasion she was given a drink by Roberto Jaz at MH after which she felt strange. She thought she had no control. She recalls going to Venuti with Roberto Jaz and stumbling a bit on the way. That concerned her as she knew she was not drunk on alcohol.

[361] On arrival they had a drink and Roberto Jaz snorted a line of powder. She was offered the powder but said no. They ended up in a booth at Venuti when he grabbed

her, put her on top of him with force and kissed her. She tried to get away saying she was not interested in sexual contact with him. He put his hand under her skirt and put two fingers inside her. She continued to protest. She eventually broke free and left. He contacted her on Snapchat asking her to come back but she went home.


[362] Her recollection is that she did not feel in control of herself and certainly did not consent. He ignored her when she said to stop.

[363] Later, in May 2018, she and her friends including [complainant 24] went to MH. On this occasion, after having a free drink from Roberto Jaz she again felt out of control, unsteady and stumbling. She agreed to go to Venuti with Roberto Jaz. After they got there Danny Jaz and a person called [Sam] arrived. She understood he was related to the Jaz brothers but was not certain that he was the man she knew as their [family member] and who was often at MH.

[364] Knowing she had to get away she locked herself in the toilet and collapsed on the floor. She was unable to physically use her cellphone. She said she could not see it properly.

[365] The next thing she heard is banging on the door and her friend [complainant 24] calling to her to come out. She opened the door and [complainant 24] was there with [witness J], a former employee at MH. He was also [complainant 24]’s former partner.

[366] [Complainant 24] helped her walk back to MH after which she thinks she went home. She had memory blanks. She tried to reconstruct what had happened in discussion with [complainant 24]. She stayed in bed all day which was completely unusual for her after an alcohol hangover. She had not drunk enough to have an alcohol hangover.

[367] She identified a photograph of herself extracted from Roberto Jaz’s phone. It is a self taken photograph of her legs and was legitimately obtained by Roberto Jaz from her public social media pages. The Crown’s submission is that Roberto Jaz retaining the photograph is evidence of a sexual interest in her.

[368] When cross-examined she said she was a regular at MH and would drink at home before going out with her friends. She accepted that at times free drinks would be delivered on a tray by staff and not to her personally. She acknowledged being a Snapchat friend with Roberto Jaz and may have danced with him at MH from time to time and could have come across as flirty but denied any sexual interest in Roberto Jaz.

[369] She was referred to Exhibit 14, an email exchange between herself and [Inspector ZD]. She accepted that in describing what happened to her at Venuti she does not refer to fingers in her vagina but says that he “shoved his hand up my dress”. The suggestion apparently being that it is not a description of sexual violation by digital penetration. She said that she did not want to be that specific in the email and that by saying he put his hand up her dress she was referring to his fingers inside her. She was adamant in her evidence in court that it happened.

[370] It was put to her that no drugs were ever offered to her at Venuti by Roberto Jaz and that there was no sexual violation by Roberto Jaz but just mutual kissing. She denied that and also denied that any feelings of intoxication were solely due to alcohol.

[371] In relation to the later event (Charge 42) it was put to her that she did not go alone with Roberto Jaz to Venuti but went there as a foursome with [complainant 24], [witness J] (the former MH employee and former partner of [complainant 24]) and Roberto Jaz to have a drink. She denied that saying that [complainant 24] and [witness J] came later when she was rescued from the toilet where she had locked herself in. It was further put that on arrival of the foursome at Venuti, for some reason [complainant 24] had an argument with [witness J] after which all four retired back to MH. She denied this also.

[372] She accepted that even after this event she did return to MH because she was happy to go, safely in the company of friends who still wished to go there.

[373] Roberto Jaz’s counsel suggested that he did not work behind the bar at MH but was simply a general hand in the public area. She denied that saying that he was behind the bar when she was given drinks.

[374] Danny Jaz’s counsel suggested that on the last occasion Danny Jaz was not there at all. She was sure that he was.

[375] In further cross-examination it was put to her that she never considered the possibility of being drugged until she read media articles. She denied that saying that it occurred to her at the time that she had been drugged.

[376] In re-examination Exhibits 14, 15 and 16 were produced being the September 2018 email exchange with [Inspector ZD] (Exhibit 14), October 2019 emails with [Constable ZG] (Exhibit 15), and January 2020 emails with [Detective Y] (Exhibit 16).

[377] Exhibit 14 is an admissible prior consistent statement which contains references to going to Venuti with Roberto Jaz at his invitation on the first occasion. It contains reference to a second occasion where she was offered drugs and then a third occasion with kissing followed by force where he grabbed her and put his hand under her dress. It contains reference to her telling him to stop and pushing him off.

[378] The email refers to a further occasion when she went there alone with Roberto Jaz when she was intoxicated and felt that the drinks given to her by him were spiked. She notes in the email that he was behind the bar serving drinks.

[379] The email also refers to Danny Jaz and his [family member] coming to Venuti and closing the door. It refers also to her locking herself in the bathroom and her friend [complainant 24] arriving with “a bartender at MH” who both found her on the ground in a bathroom.

[380] She refers also to Danny Jaz assaulting her in the toilets at MH, a matter which he admitted by his guilty plea to Charge 24.

[381] Defence counsel’s cross-examination resulted in the admission of a powerfully consistent statement that counsel knew of and must have realised would be produced in re-examination. It neutralised the cross-examination and strengthened the Crown

case considerably. This is a trap that more than one defence counsel fell into during the trial.


[382] Exhibits 15 and 16 were produced to respond to challenges about, and to explain the timing and content of, her FWS. The challenges in cross-examination on this point are completely explained and have no impact upon my assessment of her evidence or proof of guilt.

[383] [Complainant 24] gave evidence in support of [complainant 2] and also Charge 43 where [complainant 24] is herself the subject of alleged disabling by the Jaz brothers. She referred also to Charge 25, an allegation that she was indecently assaulted by Danny Jaz to which he has pleaded guilty.

[384] In relation to that indecent assault, she said she was in a toilet at MH when Danny Jaz came in and asked to watch her. She said no so he asked to see her underwear. She refused so he slapped her bottom.

[385] She recalled an occasion in May 2018 when she was at MH with [complainant 2]. She noticed [complainant 2] was gone but then saw her on the street with Roberto Jaz. They were going in the direction of Venuti. She was leaning on him and seemed unstable. She then found [witness J] who was socialising at MH and they both went down to Venuti.

[386] On arrival she could not see [complainant 2] but saw Roberto and Danny Jaz at a table. She then heard [complainant 2] calling from the toilet so she opened the door and saw her lying on the ground. She has vague memories of a third person being at Venuti but could not say who that person was.

[387] On the issue of her own alleged disabling (Charge 43) she conceded that her memory blanks may be down to alcohol. As noted above the Jaz brothers were acquitted on Charge 43 on that basis, and also that there was no direct link between themselves and any alleged stupefaction by an unknown substance administered in her drink.

[388] It was put to [complainant 24] in cross-examination that she, [complainant 2], [witness J] and Roberto Jaz all went to Venuti together and had some drinks after which there was an argument between herself and [witness J] and then they all went back to MH together.

[389] She denied going to Venuti as a foursome saying that she went there with [witness J] out of concern for [complainant 2] whom she had seen stumbling and leaning on Roberto Jaz going to the restaurant. She said that when she got there the Jaz brothers and an unknown man were all there at a table. She became aware of [complainant 2] in the toilet in a distressed state and yelled at Roberto Jaz who had his head in his hands.

[390] She accepts she had heated words with [witness J] whom she considered was connected to the Jaz brothers and who she considered were responsible for her friend’s intoxication and distress. She was able to remove [complainant 2] and get her home safely.

[391] It was put to her that Danny Jaz was not at Venuti on this occasion but she was sure that he was.

[392] She was cross-examined further on messaging between herself and [witness J] in September 201856 where [complainant 24] says that her memory of events was not good and asked him to clarify what occurred.

[393] Significantly, as [witness J] was subsequently called by Roberto Jaz to give evidence, the opening message from [complainant 24] to [witness J] on 13 September 2018 starts:

Heya!! So crazy but the girl [complainant 2] who was with us that night that I made you come with me down to the restaurant ... She thinks she was drugged by Robbie and she is talking to the detective currently about it.


[394] [Witness J] responds and says that it was not how he recalled it and that:

We went down there and we argued whilst they did shots then we all went back to Hooch.

56 Exhibit [KJ] A.


[395] Roberto Jaz called two witnesses, [witness J] and a former employee of MH and Venuti, [witness K]. She worked with Roberto Jaz at Venuti and knew that he would go to MH on Saturdays after finishing work there. She said that she never saw him behind the bar serving a customer and that all he did was collect empties and get ice. She said she only ever saw him pouring drinks for himself which would be a beer.

[396] The obvious purpose of calling this witness was to exclude Roberto Jaz from getting drinks other than for himself and that he did not get drinks for persons such as [complainant 2] or others that allege that their drinks were spiked by him.

[397] I accept [witness K] was an honest witness and that she never saw Roberto Jaz behind the bar but others did including [complainant 1], [complainant 2], [complainant 10] and [complainant 30]. Furthermore, [witness K] accepted she was not working at MH at the time of the alleged offending against [complainant 2].

[398] [Witness J] gave evidence specifically directed at Charge 42. He confirmed working at MH as a bouncer in 2016, returning in 2017 behind the bar. He left some time in 2018.

[399] He recalls an incident in May 2018 when he went to Venuti with [complainant 24]. He knew that [complainant 2] flatted with her. He was at MH on this occasion as a patron when he says Roberto Jaz showed him a Snapchat communication from [complainant 2]. It appeared to him from that communication that [complainant 2] was overtly flirting with Roberto Jaz. He understood Roberto Jaz to also have an interest in [complainant 2].

[400] He recalls going down to Venuti with [complainant 24] and also Roberto Jaz and [complainant 2]. He was not sure why but thought perhaps they were just going there for a drink but when they got there they separated out into pairs. He went to the kitchen area with [complainant 24] who became argumentative, for reasons he did not understand, while [complainant 2] and Roberto Jaz were sitting at a table somewhere in the body of Venuti. He decided he did not need an argument so decided to leave as did Roberto Jaz and [complainant 2].

[401] His evidence was that they were only there for about 20 minutes. He does not think they had a drink although that was why they went there. They all went back to MH. He then went home.

[402] He was adamant that he did not go there with [complainant 24] to rescue [complainant 2]. He denied that anyone else, apart from the foursome, was at Venuti that night.

[403] He recalls getting a text from [complainant 24] advising that [complainant 2] was going to the police and wanted details about what happened. By then he had seen the first of the newspaper publications about MH and said that he found it very hard to believe that the Jaz brothers would do what was suggested. He was shown Exhibit [SJ] A containing the text messaging between himself and [complainant 24] on 13 September 2018.

[404] In cross-examination [witness J] confirmed that both Jaz brothers would pour drinks, would give the authority for free drinks to customers, and would deliver them. He denied going to Venuti with [complainant 24] and seeing the Jaz brothers and [Sam Jones] in the restaurant. He denied seeing [complainant 2] in the toilet and that he assisted [complainant 24] return [complainant 2] to MH. He denied that his evidence is coloured by his allegiance to the Jaz brothers.

[405] In re-examination it was confirmed that in 2020 when speaking to the police he made a statement consistent with his evidence in Court.

[406] I reject the evidence of [witness J] as partisan to the Jaz brothers.

[407] He could not say why they went to the restaurant, saying perhaps it was for a drink and he could not give a reason why [complainant 24], having asked him to be in the foursome going to Venuti, would become argumentative on arrival.

[408] He said that it was he who suggested they all leave but cannot remember if they had the drink they went there for. He says that [complainant 2] and Roberto Jaz

were only talking which is contrary to the concept of any mutual sexual interest. He says they both simply agreed to leave having sat at a table for 20 minutes.


[409] Given Roberto Jaz’s proven habit of taking women, including [complainant 2] on a previous occasion, to Venuti for sexual purposes it is implausible that he would simply up and leave at the suggestion of [witness J]. If [complainant 24] and [witness J] were leaving Roberto Jaz would conveniently be left there with [complainant 2] whom it is said had a sexual interest in him. Something she denies.

[410] I accept the unchallenged evidence of [complainant 2] that she went to Venuti with Roberto Jaz on more than one occasion. I accept also that she was offered drugs on one of those occasions. I take into account cross propensity evidence and convictions that show Roberto Jaz takes females to Venuti, offers them drugs and sexually offends against them. I also take into account that he has a knowledge of drugs, was found to have drugs in his possession, and has been convicted of administering drugs to other complainants.

[411] [Complainant 2]’s account of events is supported by the consistent statements in the email (exhibit 14). Her explanation for not saying explicitly that Roberto Jaz placed his fingers into her vagina is eminently reasonable and acceptable to me as finder of fact. I accept her evidence in court that he did exactly that.

[412] Exhibit [SJ] A is of more assistance to the Crown than the defence. It supports the testimony of [complainant 24]. Her message to [witness J] refers to her making him come with her to Venuti, as she says in evidence.

[413] [Complainant 2] and [complainant 24] were credible, plausible and consistent witnesses. I have no reason to question their evidence and accept it on all material matters.

[414] The Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that [complainant 2] was stupefied by Roberto Jaz to facilitate sexual offending on the occasion that he took her to Venuti for a third time and that he sexually violated her there by digital penetration (Charges 37 and 38).

[415] The Crown has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the occasion in May 2018 (Charge 42) that [complainant 2] was stupefied with same ulterior intent.

[416] For Charge 42, the Jaz brothers formed a common purpose to pursue sexual contact with [complainant 2] and to assist each other in the pursuit of that purpose. Roberto Jaz administered an unknown substance in a drink given to [complainant 2] for the purpose of inducing in her a willingness to engage in sexual activity which the brothers knew she would not otherwise engage in. Danny Jaz knew it was a probable consequence that his brother would do that.

[417] There was no sexual contact thanks to the actions of [complainant 24] but the charge of stupefying is made out.

[418] [Complainant 2] went to Venuti alone with Roberto Jaz and two men including Danny Jaz soon arrived. [Sam Jones] is not identified as the second man and there is no adequate proof that he was there let alone being involved in the stupefying of [complainant 2]. It was for that reason that he was found not guilty on Charge 42.

[419] I am satisfied that the only reason Danny Jaz came to Venuti was that he knew that his brother took [complainant 2] there for sexual purposes and knew he had likely drugged her for that reason. I also take into account the internal propensity evidence which derives directly from the evidence supporting the charges concerning [complainant 1]. In that case Danny Jaz was the person who delivered [complainant 1] to Venuti. In this case the roles were reversed but makes no difference. They both decided to engage in sexual activity with a stupefied woman and the evidence satisfies proof of the elements of the charge.

Charge 39 (Roberto Jaz)

Possession of an objectionable publication (29 January 2018)

– Video #610 on device RJ2


[420] The police found a GIF on Roberto Jaz’s phone, device RJ2. The elements of the offence are set out at [30] above. There is no issue that the GIF is an objectionable publication. The decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification is attached to the s 9 admission and describes the GIF as objectionable:

Because it promotes and supports the use of extreme violence and cruelty to compel a person to submit to sexual conduct.


[421] The description of the content of the GIF from the classification is that it:

has a running time of six seconds, is in colour, and depicts four naked men standing in a room around a naked woman. They are aggressively grabbing, pulling and pushing her between them. They have erect or semi-erect penises. One man holds her by the neck, another by the hair, while another puts his hand on her back. One is pulling her arm. She is lifted up by the hair and spun around as one man pulls her closer with his hand clamped over her mouth. A fifth person on the far left pushes one of the men towards the woman. The men are visibly and excitedly engaged in the activity. The clip has no sound.


[422] The ruling further describes the content in this way:

The men appear sexually aroused, excited and enjoying violently controlling and overpowering the naked woman in a degrading and dehumanising manner. They subjugate her entirely through the violence with no indication of her consent. It conveys the idea that the woman shown in it, and women generally, can be overwhelmed with physical aggression in a sexual setting and in a way to reinforce their object-hood, and to deny them any agency in sexual encounters.

The woman is presented as a mere object of amusement for the pleasure of the men, in relation to which her welfare is absolutely disregarded. The men appear to enjoy this activity and perform it wilfully. For these reasons the video file promotes and supports the use of extreme violence and cruelty to compel a person to submit to sexual conduct.


[423] The issues for me to address are whether the objectionable publication was in the possession of Roberto Jaz and that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the publication is objectionable.

[424] I am in no doubt that the publication is in Roberto Jaz’s possession. It was found on his phone together with other material depicting sexual activity which he has recorded and in which he participates.

[425] Mr Smit questioned the technical expert, Ms Manteiga of the Police Digital Forensics Unit, who gave evidence as to the downloading of information from various devices. She accepted that it is possible for information to come onto a device from others without the knowledge of the owner or possessor of that device. That

questioning was directed at raising a doubt as to whether or not Roberto Jaz knew the GIF was on his phone. I am quite satisfied he did.


[426] It was not a single item but was found together with multiple other items involving sexual activity in which Roberto Jaz was himself engaging. Ms Manteiga said even if the GIF had arrived by automatic download it would still be available to view in the device user’s gallery.

[427] The external and internal propensity evidence establishes that Roberto Jaz has a sexual interest in, and engages in sexual activity with, females without consent and indifferent to consent. The activity depicted in the GIF is an overt demonstration of male indifference to female consent and is consistent with Roberto Jaz’s own attitude which I find established. It is not a reasonable possibility that he did not know of the GIF on his device and was thus not in possession.

[428] To the contrary I am satisfied he knew of it and retained it.

[429] The remaining issue for the Crown to establish is that Roberto Jaz knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the publication is objectionable.

[430] Section 3(1) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 defines the word “objectionable” as:

... describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.


[431] The GIF is clearly objectionable in terms of that definition and as found by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

[432] The Crown must prove knowledge or reasonable cause to believe. The onus is not on a defendant to disprove that. There is no defence evidence on the point and I am asked to draw an inference from the proven facts. I readily do so. Roberto Jaz had the GIF on his phone and knew it was there. There could be no other reasonable conclusion on that point. It depicts subrogation and violence against a woman in the

manner described in the ruling. If Roberto Jaz did not know the publication was objectionable he undoubtedly had reasonable cause to know it was.

Charge 40 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones])57

Disabling [complainant 16] (24 March 2018)


[433] [Complainant 16] was 18 on 24 March 2018 and was in town with [her friends]. They had some drinks before going to town and then went to two bars but did not drink anything at those bars. They were more concerned with dancing. They then moved on to MH and after waiting in the queue they got in.

[434] At MH they continued to dance and [complainant 16] recalls that drinks were handed to them at the bar by a man with long hair and a moustache. There was no challenge to that person being Danny Jaz.

[435] [Complainant 16] said that while she and her friends were dancing, drinks were delivered to them on the dance floor. She was shown image 164 in Exhibit 1, a photograph taken at 1:56 am on 24 March 2018 showing herself, two friends and Danny Jaz. She confirmed it was Danny Jaz who delivered the drinks on the dance floor.

[436] She recalls that a particular drink did not taste very nice but she drank it because it was free.

[437] Her recollection of events then fades. She does recall being outside MH and waiting for an uber and then being on the driveway at her parents’ house. She slept downstairs in the lounge and felt awful in the morning. She vomited when she got into the shower at midday and then went back to bed. She said she had never had a hangover like that in the past or since.

[438] She said that on a later date, 12 May 2018, she was back at MH and was dancing. She saw Danny Jaz who came over and placed his hand on her bottom. Danny Jaz pleaded guilty to indecent assault (Charge 42).

57 There was insufficient evidence to implicate [Sam Jones] who was discharged under s 147 on 3 April 2023.


[439] In cross-examination she acknowledged the drinks that she had at home before going out and then at MH. She confirmed that Danny Jaz provided the drinks on the dance floor and that she had seen him make them. She confirmed that the barman took image 164 with an apparent invitation by Mr Matthews for me to conclude that the barman must have provided the drugged drink but I will not accept an invitation to speculate. The clear evidence is that the drinks were provided by Danny Jaz.

[440] The friends that were out with [complainant 16] on 24 March 2018 gave evidence. [Witness L] said that the group were all about 5/10 intoxicated at MH when [complainant 16] suddenly changed. She kept saying something was wrong with her, shaking her hands, shaking her head and could not stand still. This rapid change occurred inside the bar. [Complainant 16] went outside and vomited and [witness L] says that from then on it was “lights out”.

[441] She has known [complainant 16] all her life and has never seen her like that before, even after what she described as big nights drinking alcohol.

[442] A decision was made to get [complainant 16] home. She was taken outside and was leaning on a signpost after which she vomited. [Witness L] photographed [complainant 16] to show her the next day what she was like. She was shown image 161 in Exhibit 1 which clearly shows [complainant 16] sitting on the ground, leaning on a wall, and apparently oblivious to where she was or how she was. She said that on the way home in an uber she took a short video of [complainant 16] showing what she described as “lights out”. The video was not played in Court but a still photograph was produced.58

[443] [Witness L] said that she too received a free drink on the dance floor but was sufficiently concerned with its odd taste that she forced herself to vomit in the toilet. She denied in cross-examination that it was because she was too drunk. She said there was something wrong with the drink.

[444] [Witness O] was also 18 at the time she was out with [complainant 16] and their group on 24 March 2018. She had not met Danny Jaz before this evening but

58 Exhibit 1, image 166.

because her family knew his family she sought him out and introduced herself. As a result the group received free drinks.


[445] She said although the group were drinking at MH she and the others were at the same level of intoxication and simply having a good time.

[446] She also noted the rapid change in [complainant 16]. She said it was like a flicking of a switch when she went floppy with no control. She said she could not speak but before that was simply tipsy, in control and enjoying herself.

[447] When she was taken outside she went limp and vomited. She said she was in the uber also and was scared because [complainant 16] was in and out of consciousness and vomiting out the uber window. When the car stopped she fell out of the car still vomiting.

[448] The next day she said she “looked like death” and had never seen her before, or since, like this simply as a result of drinking alcohol. She confirmed that at MH she and her group were drinking raspberry vodkas and red bull vodkas and no-one paid for a drink that evening.

[449] She said the last drink that was given to them was said to be gin and tonic or so she thought.

[450] She did not drink it because she did not like the taste. She said it was disgusting.

[451] In cross-examination she denied that she was uninterested in her friend’s state of intoxication. To the contrary she said that when she is out with her group she prides herself in keeping an eye on her friends. She confirmed that the group all had the same amount to drink.

[452] The Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that [complainant 16] was stupefied by the hand of Danny Jaz. He provided the free drinks and it was the last drink, which tasted different, that led to the stupefaction. The charge of disabling is proved against Danny Jaz but there is no evidence to implicate Roberto Jaz who was

acquitted. As noted [Sam Jones] was discharged earlier in the trial as the Crown accepted there was no evidence to implicate him.

Charge 27 (Roberto Jaz)

Making an intimate visual recording (24 September 2017)

– Of a female depicted on Video #237 on device RJ2

Charge 45 (Roberto Jaz)

Making an intimate visual recording (26 May 2018)

– Of a female depicted on Video #473 on device RJ2

Charge 46 (Roberto Jaz)

Making an intimate visual recording (26 May 2018)

– Of a female depicted on Video #474 on device RJ2

Charge 47 (Roberto Jaz)

Making an intimate visual recording (26 May 2018)

– Of a female depicted on Video #475 on device RJ2

[453] All recordings relevant to these charges were found on device RJ2, the property of Roberto Jaz. The recordings were played in Court and were produced.

[454] Exhibit 52 contains video #237 and relates to Charge 27 and was referred to in evidence as the “up-skirt” video.

[455] It is a brief recording showing a female wearing a skirt with her legs exposed. She is being followed and filmed from behind with the device pointing up to and under her skirt. The “up-skirt” description is apt.

[456] Exhibit 55 contains video #473 and relates to Charge 45. It shows a male having sexual intercourse with a female from behind and runs for about 10 seconds. I am satisfied that the video clearly depicts the activity taking place at Venuti.

[457] Exhibit 56 relates to Charge 46 and contains video #474. The recording is made at Venuti and shows a female giving oral sex to a male. She does not look up at the male or at the camera. It runs for about 5 seconds.

[458] Exhibit 57 relates to Charge 47 and contains video #475. The recording depicts the same female as in Charge 46 containing videos #474. She does not look up at the male or the camera.

[459] Recordings #474 and #475 are similar but were extracted as separate recordings thus justifying separate charges.

[460] The Crown case is that all four recordings are intimate visual recordings made without the knowledge or consent of the female being filmed.

[461] There is no issue that the content of the recordings are within the defined activity referred to in [33]. An intimate visual recording was made in each case. The issue is whether that was done without the knowledge or consent of the female shown in the recording and, given Mr Smit’s cross-examination of Ms Manteiga, whether the recordings were made by Roberto Jaz.

[462] The Crown case is that Roberto Jaz made the recordings and that there is no reasonable possibility that someone else did. The Crown says the recordings were found on his device, the activity in Charges 45-47 occurred at Venuti where Roberto Jaz takes females for sexual purposes, and that Roberto Jaz not only has a propensity to record sexual activity, but he also does so without the consent of the female concerned and is indifferent to consent in any event.

[463] In support of the charges, and as propensity evidence, the “[person X]” recording was played and produced as Exhibit 53. There are no charges arising from the “[person X]” recording but it has propensity value.

[464] [Person X] is outside MH with a group of men containing all three defendants in this trial, and possibly a fourth man. She is encouraged to show her breast before giving oral sex to one of the men. She consents to doing that but makes quite clear that she objects to being filmed. She says “do not record this”.

[465] Roberto Jaz, being aware of her objection, says “fucken, why would I record this shit”. But he does make a recording and he retains it. I have previously ruled59 that the [person X] recordings are highly probative of Roberto Jaz’s tendency to make intimate visual recordings in the absence of consent. He is told of [person X]’s clear objection, he impliedly acknowledges the objection and confirms he would not record, but does so irrespective of her objection and indifferent to her lack of consent.

[466] There is clear evidence that Roberto Jaz has a tendency to record sexual activity. He recorded what occurred with [complainant 1]. He recorded what occurred with [person X]. The Crown played in Court what is known as the “pink dress” recording where Roberto Jaz and another man, [witness A],60 have consensual sexual activity with a female. He makes and retains recordings. During the [complainant 1] recordings he comments to [Sam Jones] that “this is another one for the collection”.

[467] The Crown also produced as Exhibit 51 the “[name deleted]” oral sex video as further proof of Roberto Jaz’s propensity to make and keep recordings of sexual activity. All recordings were all found on his phone.

[468] In Mr Smit’s cross-examination of Ms Mantiega he appeared to be challenging the suggestion that the recordings, the subject of these charges, may not have been made by Roberto Jaz. She gave technical evidence as to the extraction process, describing that an application on Roberto Jaz’s phone, known as “Hide it Pro” was found and where the recordings had been secreted.

[469] Mr Smit appeared to base his challenge, however, on the absence of a particular Samsung model phone which had been used to make one or more of the recordings. Ms Mantiega gave detailed evidence in the face of that challenge and Mr Smit’s cross- examination did not in any way support the apparent suggestion that Roberto Jaz did not make each or any of the recordings.

[470] Mr Smit did not, however, give up on that theme as he subsequently made an application for discharge on all four charges on the basis that his client is not identified

59 Trial Ruling 10.

60 [Witness A] applied for permanent suppression of his name which I granted without opposition on 21. 7. 23.

in them. Roberto Jaz is not shown to be the person making the “up-skirt” video. He is not shown to be the person receiving oral sex or performing sexual intercourse in the recordings relevant to Charges 45-47 but I rejected his application on the basis that it is entirely unrealistic.


[471] The recordings were found on Roberto Jaz’s phone. He had taken steps to secrete them. Three of the recordings, Charges 45-47, are made at Venuti. There was no reasonable basis to conclude that someone other than Roberto Jaz had made the recordings. There was clearly a case to answer.

[472] Taking into account not only where the recordings were located, secreted on a device possessed by Roberto Jaz, but also his clearly established tendency to record sexual activity I am in no doubt that it was Roberto Jaz that made the recordings the subject of each of these charges. He made them and is the male depicted in them in Charges 45-47. Although the location of the “up-skirt” video is unknown, the only inference available from the evidence is that the recording was made by Roberto Jaz.

[473] The remaining issue is whether the recordings were made without the knowledge or consent of the female being filmed. It is not for Roberto Jaz to prove there was knowledge or consent, it is for the Crown to prove that there was not. I am quite satisfied that there was neither knowledge nor consent in each case.

[474] I take into account Roberto Jaz’s established tendency to make recordings without consent as demonstrated in the [person X] recording. He ignored, and was entirely indifferent to, [person X]’s clear objection to filming.

[475] He was aware that [complainant 1] was incapable of consent but made the recording nonetheless “for the collection” and then lied to her about deleting it.

[476] Clearly the female, the subject of the “up-skirt” video, was oblivious to what was occurring.

[477] The female in video #473, relevant to Charge 45, has her back to Roberto Jaz and I am satisfied that she was oblivious to the fact that the recording was being made.

That is consistent with Roberto Jaz’s propensity to not only make recordings of sexual activity but to do so irrespective of consent.


[478] The female in videos #474 and #475, is the same and at no stage does she look up at Roberto Jaz or to the phone used to make the recording. I am satisfied that she was unaware that the recording was being made, consistent with Roberto Jaz’s established tendency to not only make recordings but to do so regardless of whether the female is consenting.

[479] I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that none of the females, the subject of the recordings for these four charges, was aware the recording was being made and for that reason the elements of the charges are all satisfied and Roberto Jaz was convicted.

Charge 48 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 31] (on or about 15 June 2018)


[480] In addition to this charge [complainant 31] is also the complainant in a charge of indecent assault against Danny Jaz on the same date (Charge 49). He pleaded guilty to that charge.

[481] [Complainant 31]’s EVI was played and a transcript provided. [Complainant 31] went to MH with her partner on 15 June 2018. For reasons unknown her partner was asked to leave. It is the Crown’s submission that for the purposes of isolating young women at MH their partners were sometimes asked to leave, being “kicked out” by the bouncers. I heard evidence that this occurred on more than one occasion. It may be consistent with the Crown case but I am not prepared to elevate it beyond that. I give it no weight when determining if any of the charges are proved.

[482] [Complainant 31] says that she and another friend were offered free drinks by the owner of the bar after which she loses her memory of what happened until she woke up around midday the next day completely naked with vomit everywhere. Her phone and EFTPOS cards were missing and despite feeling nauseous she went to work. Whilst there she became aware that those items were found in a different

Christchurch suburb. She does not know if or how she went there, or indeed how she got home.


[483] In describing the owner that gave her the free drinks, she said he was a man with a moustache and a man bun but does not know his name. I am satisfied that description clearly identifies Danny Jaz.

[484] Her last memory at MH was going to the toilet, then after that she has no memory until she woke up the next day. She says that at the point she lost her memory she was tipsy but not drunk. She was aware of herself and her surroundings and then things changed. She said that when drinking she never vomits, never has blackouts and is aware of herself.

[485] At work she was unable to function and could not eat for a number of days. She was clear this was not a simple alcohol hangover.

[486] In cross-examination she admitted to drinking before she went to MH. She rejected the suggestion that she picked up someone else’s drink when dancing and she flatly denied flirting with the owner. She denies going voluntarily to the bathroom with him.

[487] Her partner is deceased and his FWS was read. He recalls being told to leave MH by the bouncers, for no apparent reason, and that when [complainant 31] came home she was yelling aggressively, was not making much sense, and was assaulting him. She had no recollection of that the next day. He said that [complainant 31] does not get excessively drunk and her actions that night were entirely out of character. She does not act like that when she has been drinking alcohol.

[488] [Complainant 31]’s employer gave evidence. Contrary to her normal dependability and punctuality this was not the case the day after she had been to MH. Contrary also to her normal impeccable grooming when she came to work that day she was not well groomed at all.

[489] [Witness P], [complainant 31]’s friend who went with her and her partner to MH, gave evidence. She recalls getting drinks from one of the owners who had a man bun. They were in shot glasses and were sweet. She noted the change in [complainant 31] and decided to take her to the bathroom. The bathroom layout at MH was established in evidence and it was also made clear in evidence that there is often a long queue of people waiting to use one of the three toilets. This witness said that when she took [complainant 31] into the disabled toilet the owner with the man bun followed them in and locked the door behind him.

[490] Significantly, this witness noted that it was only when she and [complainant 31] got to the front of the queue to get into the toilets that the owner with the man bun turned up and entered the toilets with them.

[491] In her view [complainant 31] was not aware of what happening in the toilet when she saw the man with the man bun kiss her. She was not in control and her eyes were glazed over.

[492] In cross-examination this witness admitted that she and [complainant 31] had been drinking before going to MH but said that [complainant 31] is usually calm and collected and well in control when drinking. She had never seen her like this in the past.

[493] The charge against Danny Jaz was proved. He was clearly identified as the person that gave the drink to [complainant 31]. Based on her evidence and the evidence of her supporting witnesses, coupled with the expert evidence from Professor Drummer and Danny Jaz’s propensity to drug female patrons I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that [complainant 31] was stupefied.

[494] I take the view that this charge could have been justifiably laid as stupefying under s 191. The unknown substance was administered by Danny Jaz without the knowledge of [complainant 31] and to pursue sexual activity with her which would otherwise not have taken place. He not only administered the drink for that purpose, he monitored her until such time as she and her friend had moved sufficiently forward

in the queue to be entering the toilet when he went in with them and closed the door. Had stupefying been charged I would have convicted.


[495] However, there is no evidence that Roberto Jaz had anything to do with what occurred. For the reasons already expressed I have rejected the Crown submission that there was a common unlawful purpose between the Jaz brothers. Roberto Jaz was found not guilty of this charge.

Charge 50 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 26] (on 22 June 2018)


[496] [Complainant 26] is also the complainant in Charge 51 which alleges sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection by Danny Jaz on the same occasion. Danny Jaz has pleaded guilty to Charge 51.

[497] [Complainant 26] is also the complainant in Charge 75, an allegation of disabling against both the Jaz brothers on or about 8 September 2018. As noted above I have found them both not guilty of that charge.

[498] [Complainant 26] and her friend [complainant 10] (the complainant in Charge

52) went to MH about midnight on 22 June 2018. They had previously been to a sporting function.


[499] She knew Danny Jaz from previous occasions and after buying a drink for herself and [complainant 10] she was called to the bar by Danny Jaz. She watched him pour three sambucas and they each had a drink, including Danny Jaz. She said that when she had previously ordered wine that night it was he that poured it.

[500] Later in the evening, again at the bar, Danny Jaz came over with two further shots of sambuca, one for herself and one for [complainant 10].

[501] She said that after that shot she felt dizzy with blurry vision and was anxious. She had not drunk much at all and was being particularly careful that evening. She had netball the next day.

[502] She went to the dance floor to try and dance off the effect of the last drink that Danny Jaz had given her but she remained weak, confused, disorientated, and felt she had no control of her body. She ended up in the toilets with Danny Jaz who put his penis into her mouth.

[503] The next day she vomited which is rare for her on alcohol. She said it was not like an alcohol hangover. She did not get to netball.

[504] She recalls speaking with [complainant 10] later that day who said she felt the same way.

[505] She returned to MH in September with friends and got a free drink but does not know who delivered it. That was the only drink she had there. That drink had a similar effect on her as did the last drink she had on the earlier occasion.

[506] In cross-examination she confirmed that it was Danny Jaz who poured and provided the free drinks on the June occasion and denied that the alcohol she took at MH on that occasion had hit her harder than she thought.

[507] I am satisfied that Danny Jaz provided the drinks and that he administered an unknown substance in the last drink consumed by [complainant 26]. Stupefaction was proved.

[508] I consider this is an occasion similar to the previous charge involving [complainant 31]. Danny Jaz has targeted [complainant 26] and has ensured that he ended up in the toilet with her. He sexually violated her (as he admits) and this too is a charge that in my view could have been laid as stupefying under s 191. Danny Jaz is convicted of this charge. There is no basis to convict Roberto Jaz who was acquitted.

Charge 52 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 10] (on 22 June 2018)


[509] [Complainant 10] is the friend that accompanied [complainant 26] to MH on 22 June 2018. An EVI was played followed by oral evidence. A transcript was provided but not produced. This complainant has been the subject of previous motor

vehicle accidents and suffered a traumatic brain injury. She was on a range of medication but I found her evidence to be clearly delivered and understandable. It was not necessary for me to accommodate her by giving breaks as had been agreed if necessary.


[510] She was at a sporting event with [complainant 26] on 22 June 2018. She drove to MH intending to have a single drink only as she too had netball the next day. They bought a glass of wine but were then offered free drinks. She tried Sambuca for the first time.

[511] She went to the toilets and was followed by another man (not one of the Jaz brothers) and ended up in sexual activity with him. She considers herself as a straight- laced person who would normally fight back with appropriate verbal epithets but she did not do so. She felt incapable of resisting.

[512] She ended up going in a car with the man who was pulled over by the police for other reasons and she was taken home by a police officer.

[513] She was confused as to why she would have felt the way she did and wondered if it was the alcohol as she is not the sort of person that would end up in a toilet with a random man. At one point she described her symptoms as akin to what happened when she had had previous MRI scans as a result of past trauma.

[514] Due to the number of scans she developed claustrophobia and was given a sedative to overcome that. She said the feeling of numbness after having the drink at MH was similar to the MRI sedation.

[515] She accepted in cross-examination that contrary to her intentions she had drunk more than she normally would, hence her initial thoughts that she must have been drunk to experience the symptoms she did at MH, particularly in the toilets.

[516] It was when she saw the articles in the local media about alleged drugging at MH she realised that is what had happened to her. It explained the rapid change and the out of character conduct. She expressly denied making up a story to avoid the

embarrassment of getting drunk and ending up in a toilet with a stranger and later in his car.


[517] In considering whether disabling of [complainant 10] has been proved I take into account the evidence of [complainant 24]. [Complainant 24] positively identifies Danny Jaz as the person who provided the drinks. She was stupefied and Danny Jaz sexually violated her in a toilet.

[518] A similar thing happened with [complainant 10] but with an unrelated male.

[519] [Complainant 10] described symptoms which are consistent with stupefaction. Her initial inclination to put it down to alcohol was disabused when she became aware that others were making complaints about drugging at MH. She denied lying about that and I am quite satisfied that she was an honest witness and was not making up a story to overcome embarrassment about her actions that night. What occurred to her that night with the unrelated male was directly as a result of being stupefied by Danny Jaz. Danny Jaz was convicted of this charge but there is no evidence to implicate Roberto Jaz who was acquitted.

Charge 53 ([Sam Jones])

Offering to supply MDMA to [complainant 30] (on 23 June 2018)


[520] [Complainant 30] knew the Jaz family through her partner, [witness Q]. She had also met [Sam Jones] who she understood to be their [family member]. She met [witness G], the partner of Roberto Jaz at MH and, as with many others, received a free drink when she was there.

[521] On an occasion in June 2018 she was at MH with friends [two names deleted]. By this time her relationship with [witness Q] had ended.

[522] They were able to skip the queue, they danced but at one point her friends left and she stayed. She says she got into a discussion with [witness G] about the break up of her relationship and also spoke to [Sam Jones] in an outside smoking area.

[523] He was trying to calm her down from her break-up distress and suggested she follow him to one of the bathrooms. She did. He produced a bag of powder and offered her some saying it would calm her. He said it was MDMA. A tiny amount was placed into her drink but she said it had no effect. She had used MDMA in the past which creates talkativeness and sociability but this did not happen on this occasion.

[524] The elements of this offence are satisfied and a finding of guilty was recorded pending an application for discharge.61

Charge 54 (Danny Jaz, Roberto Jaz, [Sam Jones])

Stupefying [complainant 30] (on 23 June 2018)

Charge 55 ([Sam Jones])

Indecent assault on [complainant 30] (on or about 23 June 2018)


[525] Later in the evening Roberto Jaz, [witness G], [Sam Jones] and [complainant 30] went to [address 1] occupied by Roberto Jaz, [witness G] and [Sam Jones]. Roberto Jaz drove.

[526] [Complainant 30] says by this time she had had a number of drinks but did not consider herself out of control on alcohol but admits to being highly emotional about her relationship problems.

[527] She says she sat on the couch at [address 1]. Roberto Jaz offered her a glass of wine. Before this occurred she saw him in the kitchen with a bottle and a glass. She was given a glass of red wine.

[528] After that she has difficulties with her memory but recalls Roberto Jaz and [witness G] going upstairs after which [Sam Jones] sat by her on the couch. She says he started touching her but she tried to push him away. She said her body was limp and she could not make her limbs move. His hands were “all over her”. He stopped when Roberto Jaz and [witness G] came downstairs.

61 As recorded in my ruling of 21.7.23, [Sam Jones] was discharged without conviction under s147 CPA.


[529] Her next recollection is that Roberto Jaz carried her upstairs. She thought she was “out of her body” and has a recollection of being on a floor upstairs and feeling anchored to it. She wanted to get out although she was being encouraged to stay the night and sleep it off.

[530] She wanted [witness Q] to come and rescue her. [Witness G] contacted him and it was agreed that she be delivered to his address.

[531] Roberto Jaz and [witness G] drove her there. [Witness Q] took her to her parents’ house and left her there. She said she got into bed with her parents. She slept most of the next day feeling down and depressed and said that she had never felt like this on alcohol or MDMA, or both, in the past.

[532] She went to the police after seeing publicity about MH but had not done so earlier because she felt embarrassed thinking what happened was all her fault.

[533] When cross-examined by Mr Aickin for Roberto Jaz she denied that she was drowning her sorrows by drinking too much on this evening and that she had only gone to MH in the hope of coming across [witness Q]. She accepted being intoxicated at the point they went back to [address 1] but said she was in complete control of her mind and body nonetheless. She denied filling in the gaps in her memory after reading a MH press article. She said her recollections are her own.

[534] She did not accept that she went upstairs under her own steam and that Roberto Jaz and [witness G] came up afterwards. She said the only reason she wanted [witness Q] to come and get her was to get her out of the situation and not to engineer a meeting with him

[535] For [Sam Jones], Mr Lange put to her that nothing was put into her drink at all and there was no offer of MDMA. She denied that. Her denial is the evidence. She also denied that she was “hanging around” [Sam Jones] at MH and that after 10 only minutes after arrival at [address 1] she disappeared upstairs and was found by [witness G] on a bathroom floor in a hysterical state.

[536] She admitted she told the police she did not think she had been drugged but, being older and wiser, she knows now that she was.

[537] She denied that the last drink she had, the red wine at [address 1], simply tipped her over the edge of intoxication to the point that she “spun out”. She repeated that she now considers she was drugged and was adamant that she had been assaulted by [Sam Jones].

[538] [Witness Q] gave evidence. He recalls getting a call from [witness G] and then being passed to speak to [complainant 30] who was incoherent. She was, unusually, making no sense and when she was delivered to him at his address she seemed very intoxicated and went downhill further so he took her to her parents. He videoed her at her parents’ saying she was “all over the show” and that he had never seen her or any other person like that when simply drunk on alcohol. The video was shown in Court. She was walking about and at one point huddled like a child in front of a heater to get warm.62

[539] She made a later statement to [witness Q] that it was [Sam Jones] who gave her a drink that caused her state and that he had his hands “all over her”.

[540] [Witness G] was called by the Crown and is a significant witness in regard to these charges.

[541] She is a former partner of Roberto Jaz. She ended the relationship when he was arrested in 2018. She talked about her enjoyment of being part of the Jaz family including the brothers and parents. She felt part of that family and called them close and loving. She worked at Venuti and is also in [profession deleted]. She recalls the evening when [complainant 30] was at MH. She had met her once before through [witness Q] who was also in [profession deleted].

[542] She said that around midnight it was her that suggested to Roberto Jaz that they should leave MH. They did so and went to [address 1] together with [Sam Jones] and [complainant 30]. She noticed [complainant 30] was intoxicated but coherent. In

62 Exhibits 21 and Exhibit 1, images 172-174.

conflict with [complainant 30] she said she was sitting with her on the couch having a drink when she noticed that [complainant 30]’s speech slurred and her condition deteriorated. She said that [complainant 30] went upstairs while she stayed on the couch. She does not know how [complainant 30] got upstairs but recalls Roberto Jaz coming downstairs saying that she was very drunk. She went up and saw her going in and out of consciousness.


[543] When [witness G] saw her upstairs, [complainant 30] was saying that “Roberto had given her something”. She said that [complainant 30] was a completely different person upstairs than when she was downstairs. She was unable to calm her down and therefore contacted [witness Q]. They took her to [witness Q].

[544] She excludes any indecent assault by [Sam Jones] on [complainant 30]. She says that he was never on the couch with her.

[545] [Witness G] said that after delivering [complainant 30] to [witness Q] she raised with Roberto Jaz the possibility of the drugging of [complainant 30]. He brushed it off by saying she had had too much to drink. In the past he had made reference to her about girls being unable to handle their alcohol.

[546] [Witness G] said that Roberto Jaz would go to MH after his shift at Venuti on weekends. Contrary to the observations of others she said that Roberto Jaz did not work behind the bar but accepted she was not at MH on all occasions he was there. I accept the evidence of those that saw Roberto Jaz behind the bar pouring and distributing drinks. It is logical that at busy times he would help in the family business simply behind the bar and not limit himself to collecting empties.

[547] She confirmed that the door at Venuti cannot be locked for obvious fire safety and escape purposes. I have commented on that above, noting that the subjective perception of a drugged female inside Venuti is quite distinct from a sober person able to rationalise leaving through a door known to be unlockable.

[548] [Witness G] said in cross-examination that on arrival at [address 1] some of the group drank cider. She said she did not recall who drank cider.

[549] Subsequently in answer to a leading question from Ms Aiken she said [complainant 30] was drinking cider from a bottle opened in front of her. The object of the questioning being to exclude any suggestion that Roberto Jaz had given [complainant 30] a glass of red wine with a stupefying substance in it.

[550] I accept the evidence of [complainant 30] on this point. She was, on her evidence and the evidence of [witness G], intoxicated but in control when the group got to [address 1]. She recalls the trip there and getting the red wine from Roberto Jaz.

[551] [Witness G] was unsure who had cider when first asked and her further answers in cross-examination do not overcome the evidence of [complainant 30] on the point.

[552] It was after the red wine from Roberto Jaz that [complainant 30] went down hill rapidly on the observation of [witness G] and she told [witness G] that Roberto Jaz had given her something, consistent with her evidence that he had provided her with a drink of wine.

[553] Although [witness G] is the ex-partner of Roberto Jaz she did not come across as someone who was wishing to assist him or [Sam Jones]. She was emotional when discussing the breakup of her relationship with Roberto Jaz and the loss of her family connection with his parents and siblings. She was mistaken about the cider but was clear that [Sam Jones] was at no time next to [complainant 30] on the couch. [Complainant 30]’s recollection of that was clearly affected by the drug administered to her by Roberto Jaz.

[554] I informed counsel that having heard from [witness G] I had a doubt about Charge 55, indecent assault by [Sam Jones], who was then discharged under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[555] However, Charge 54 remained for consideration.

[556] The only evidence which may support an allegation of stupefying relates to the drink given to [complainant 30] at [address 1]. Danny Jaz was not there and there is no possible basis to implicate him in the charge. He was acquitted for that reason.

[557] There is no evidence that [Sam Jones] gave a drink to [complainant 30] at [address 1]. The only reliable evidence is that the drink was given to her by Roberto Jaz and, consistent with her perception at the time, [complainant 30] tells [witness G] that something was given to her by him.

[558] There is no basis to conclude that Roberto Jaz and [Sam Jones] conspired to get [complainant 30] back to [address 1] for sexual purposes and to drug her there.

[559] The group went to [address 1] at the suggestion of [witness G]. [Sam Jones] was no more than part of the group. He lived at [address 1]. He is not implicated in Charge 52 as a party to Roberto Jaz’s actions and was found not guilty.

[560] I am satisfied on all the evidence that [complainant 30] was stupefied. Her rapid change of condition, the observations of [witness G] and the observations of [witness Q] support that. A stupefying substance was given to her producing symptoms described by Professor Drummer.

[561] The only candidate for stupefaction is Roberto Jaz. He was the one that provided the drink and he was the one referred to by [complainant 30] when speaking to [witness G]. He is the person in possession of the drugs subsequently found by the police in his kitchen where the red wine came from.

[562] Roberto Jaz handed [complainant 30] a drink containing an unknown stupefying substance. He did so for the purpose of inducing sexual activity he knew would not otherwise occur. It matters not who he intended would have sexual contact with [complainant 30 He may have intended to benefit [Sam Jones] who [witness G] says was flirting with [complainant 30] at MH but I am satisfied he not only provided the stupefying drink but did so with the ulterior intent to facilitate sexual offending.

[563] In reaching that conclusion I take account of the proven propensity of Roberto Jaz to stupefy females to facilitate sexual offending.

[564] [Complainant 30] unknowingly took a stupefying substance resulting in actual stupefaction.

[565] The elements of s 191 are satisfied and Roberto Jaz was convicted.

Charge 56 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 32] (on or about 13 July 2018)


[566] An EVI was played, a transcript provided and [complainant 32] gave supplementary oral evidence.

[567] She was out with friends and ended up at MH. As in the past they were let straight in and began chatting and dancing with other people. Danny Jaz was present and was giving [complainant 32] and her friends drinks and dancing with them.

[568] She and a friend were about to go outside to an area at the back of MH. It was crowded and they were struggling to get through and as she walked past the toilets to her left she was grabbed by her hips and pulled into the foyer area of the MH toilets.

[569] She realised it was Danny Jaz who then pulled her into a cubicle. She was feeling drunk and confused. She was unable to determine where the walls of the cubicle were. He began kissing her aggressively, trying to take her clothes off and then put his penis into her mouth.

[570] Her vision was hazy and her memory of events is sporadic. She heard a knock on the door. It was one of her friends. Danny Jaz was holding the door saying not to go.

[571] She managed to get the door open but was unable to stand by herself so her friend put her over her shoulder. She was taken to the street in front of MH and put into an uber which returned her to her house. Her friend came with her. She was unable to walk or talk but remembers feeling dizzy and sick. She was videoed by a

friend showing her lying on her front with her head out of a sliding door where she fell asleep oblivious to the July Christchurch temperature.63


[572] Danny Jaz has pleaded guilty to sexual violation of [complainant 32] (Charge 57).

[573] When describing her condition at the point that she was dragged into the toilet cubicle she says:

I think I was feeling, out of control, like I didn’t, I wasn’t in control at all with what was going on with my body, with what, I was doing, um, I was, quite scared, and quite like ashamed with what was going on, um, but yeah also just wasn’t in control, so, I felt like there was nothing I could really do about it.


[574] She admitted to drinking before they went out, and at other bars before getting to MH. When asked about the difference between how she felt on this occasion compared to other nights when she had the same amount to drink, she said:

I just felt, like, normally, yeah I can get pretty you know kind of like silly and like laugh and dance and kind of be, you know, quite like loud and fun but that night it was more like I was like really dizzy, I couldn’t really see straight, I felt like I was not in control of my body which isn’t normally what I feel.


[575] In cross-examination she did not accept that her symptoms of dizziness, confusion and memory blanks were simply as a result of drinking too much. She said she had had hangovers in the past but nothing like this.

[576] The FWS of her friend [witness R] was read. She confirms that [complainant 32] can hold her alcohol and that she was physically removed from the toilet at MH and taken home.

[577] Another friend, [witness S] gave evidence. She describes [complainant 32] and their friends as part of a hockey group ending up an MH between 1 am and 1:30 am. She confirms that Danny Jaz allowed them straight in and provided free drinks. She recalls seeing Danny Jaz and [complainant 32] at a table together while she was dancing but when she looked up they were gone. She looked for her but could not

63 Exhibit 1, image 180.

find her. She called her name and saw [complainant 32] and Danny Jaz coming out of a toilet cubicle.


[578] She describes [complainant 32] being “in a mess” and that she could barely walk and was assisted to an uber. She said [complainant 32] was not herself, she had slurred speech and struggled to stay upright. She has never seen her like that on alcohol alone. She describes [complainant 32] when drinking alcohol as usually happy, dancing, singing and in charge of herself. She had never seen her pass out on alcohol before as she did back at her flat.

[579] The Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that [complainant 32] was stupefied by Danny Jaz.

[580] He provided the drinks and, consistent with his propensity, he took [complainant 32] to a toilet area where admitted sexual offending occurs. As with Charge 50, I consider that if stupefying was charged under s 191 it would be established on the evidence in including cross propensity evidence of similar conduct involving other complainants who have been stupefied and where Danny Jaz has positioned himself in a way that enabled him to take the complainant into a toilet cubicle and commit a sexual assault.

[581] There is no evidence to implicate Roberto Jaz who was acquitted.

Charge 58 (Roberto Jaz)

Stupefying [complainant 4] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 59 (Roberto Jaz)

Stupefying [complainant 5] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 60 (Roberto Jaz)

Offering a Class B drug to [complainant 4] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 61 (Roberto Jaz)

Offering a Class B drug to [complainant 5] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 62 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault on [complainant 4] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 63 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault on [complainant 5] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 64 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault on [complainant 5] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 65 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault on [complainant 5] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 66 (Roberto Jaz)

Assaulting [complainant 4], a female (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 67 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault [complainant 4] (on or about 15 July 2018)

Charge 68 (Roberto Jaz)

Indecent assault (on or about 15 July 2018)


[582] I address these charges together as the allegations arise from a single occasion where Roberto Jaz allegedly took both complainants from MH to Venuti, stupefied them and then sexually offended against them. In addition to the evidence of both complainants I heard oral evidence from other witnesses and CCTV footage was produced.

[583] For the reasons that follow I had no difficulty in accepting that the Crown had proved all charges beyond reasonable doubt and thus convicted Roberto Jaz on each charge.

[584] I indicate that in her oral evidence [complainant 4] went further than she did in her EVI and said that Roberto Jaz had sexually violated her by placing his penis in her mouth. The Crown applied to amend the charging document to include a charge of sexual violation. I ruled against that.64

64 Trial Ruling 6.


[585] [Complainant 4]’s EVI was played and a transcript provided. She gave supplementary oral evidence. She was 18 at the time and had begun working fulltime at MH. She had previously worked as a waitress at Venuti whilst at school and knew the Jaz brothers. On this particular occasion she went to dinner at Venuti with her friends [complainant 5] and [witness T] to celebrate [complainant 5]’s [birthday]. They shared a bottle of wine and then went up the street to MH.

[586] [Complainant 5] went off to a concert at around 9:30 pm. Before that [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] had a line of MDMA in [complainant 5]’s car. At one point [complainant 4] went to buy more MDMA in Riccarton and then went back to MH. [Complainant 5] sent her a text after the concert had finished saying she was coming to MH. After she arrived Roberto Jaz invited [complainant 4] to come to Venuti for a drink. [Complainant 4] wanted [complainant 5] to come also because she did not want to go by herself. Roberto Jaz objected to that but in the end [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] both went with Roberto Jaz to Venuti. [Complainant 4] said she was feeling fine at that point and can remember everything of the evening.

[587] [Complainant 4] and [complainant 5] walked to Venuti and Roberto Jaz arrived soon after and unlocked the door. He deactivated the alarm and led them to the kitchen near the rear of the restaurant.

[588] She recalls him putting a white substance onto a table surface near the freezer and the fridge and used a card to line it up. They asked what it was and he said “it’s just MDMA”.

[589] [Complainant 4] and [complainant 5] were MDMA users and had nothing to fear from taking it so [complainant 4] rolled up a banknote and they both took a line of the drug that was offered to them. She has no recollection that Roberto Jaz had any of the drug himself.

[590] She says that immediately upon taking the drug she was concerned that it was not what he said it was and from that point her memory is not clear.

[591] She recalls that she could not find [complainant 5] but at one point saw her standing over by a bar. [Complainant 5] appeared to be holding on to the bar.

[592] [Complainant 4] felt like she was “like, blacking out and then coming back” and then remembers Roberto Jaz being on top of her at the back of the restaurant in a corner booth. She was telling him to stop but she could not move.

[593] She said he kept grabbing her face and trying to kiss her. She tried to get away but could not walk.

[594] At one point she ended up on the ground. He pulled her hair. When she tried to get up he would hold her back and she recalls being bitten on her back and on her stomach.

[595] He put his fingers in her mouth in a way which she felt was trying to give her more of the drug.

[596] At one point she got to the door and was able to ring her boyfriend.

[597] She said she struggled with opening the door because she could not see properly.

[598] She then recalls being on the ground in a different part of the restaurant between the coffee machine and the bar and Roberto Jaz was in front of her with his penis out. She felt she had no control over herself.

[599] She has a further recollection of being back on the floor next to the booth she was in earlier with Roberto Jaz saying he wanted to “eat my pussy” and she felt she could not get away. She had a recollection of telling [complainant 5] she was scared and that [complainant 5] told her that she was scared also. She has a recollection of receiving a phone call from [complainant 5] at one point but such was the effect of the drug given to her by Roberto Jaz she is unsure if she got the call when in Venuti or later.

[600] When describing her state she said that:

it was also just like being under water ... my ears were ringing the whole time, and I just felt really confused and had no idea what was going on.


[601] She has a recollection of going to Calendar Girls, a strip club not far from MH and which Roberto Jaz referred to as “CGs”. She saw people at Calendar Girls that were her friends and spoke to them and sat with them. She noticed that Roberto Jaz left immediately after she met up with her friends. She recalls getting an uber home in the early hours of the morning.

[602] After taking the drug given by Roberto Jaz she and [complainant 5] were constantly asking Roberto Jaz what the drug was and his consistent response was that “it’s MD”.

[603] [Complainant 4] drew a diagram of the internal layout of Venuti,65 with which she was familiar as an employee, depicting the booth where Roberto Jaz held her and assaulted her and in evidence confirmed the respective positions when referred to the restaurant photographs in Exhibit 1. The location of the booth seat is the same location described by [complainant 1] and where various intimate recordings were made. She also drew the area where the drugs were laid out and taken, also consistent with the area described by [complainant 1] when drugs were given to her.

[604] [Complainant 4] said that she was unable to get out of the door at Venuti. Evidence was given by [witness G] and others familiar with Venuti that the door of the restaurant could not be locked internally.

[605] I have already observed that the purpose of establishing that the door of the restaurant could not be locked from the inside was to impeach the credibility of complainants who were former staff or former staff members and who said they were locked in. That attempt had no impact when measured against the overwhelming evidence in support of the charges involving those complainants.

65 Exhibit 28.


[606] [Complainant 4] said that MDMA makes her feel excited and makes it easier to talk to people and just happy to be with her friends with no physical effects on her body but the effect of the drug given to her by Roberto Jaz was completely different.

[607] She said the drug given to her looked like MDMA, and that is why she had no fear of taking it being a user of that drug but very quickly everything changed.

[608] In describing the differing effects of MDMA and the drug provided by Roberto Jaz she said it was like being under water, her ears were ringing, although conscious she could not see, it was like being under a strong anaesthetic. She could not move but knew what was going on.

[609] CCTV footage was played.66 The footage was recorded via a CCTV camera outside MH on Colombo Street and a camera installed by the police in a dental practice between MH and Venuti. There was also footage on a camera attached to a commercial building on Peterborough Street which tracked [complainant 4]’s passage, with Roberto Jaz, toward Calendar Girls. There was then footage from inside Calendar Girls.

[610] An issue arose as to synchronisation of the time stamps on the various cameras but it became quite obvious that the only recordings which were inaccurately time stamped were from MH which was approximately 45 minutes fast. Nothing turns on this.

[611] The recordings show [complainant 5] returning to MH from the concert and meeting up with [complainant 4] on the footpath outside the front courtyard area. They both enter MH through the courtyard. Roberto Jaz is present inside MH at this time as previous footage shows him coming from the direction from Venuti and entering through the courtyard.

[612] The next time [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] are seen they are exiting the interior of MH through the courtyard and turning right on the Colombo Street footpath in the direction of Venuti. As recorded on the CCTV camera located at the

66 Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 1, images 181-197 (stills from CCTV).

dentists’ premises they both walk normally, at a regular pace showing no signs of intoxication or any disability. Roberto Jaz is seen going to Venuti.


[613] Approximately 75 minutes later they are recorded on the CCTV camera located in the dentists’ premises coming from the direction of Venuti. [Complainant 5] is remarkably different from the way she appeared earlier. She struggles to walk in a straight line, she impacts with the wall of a vacant premises between Venuti and MH and then runs on the footpath towards MH and goes out of shot. [Complainant 4] is walking slowly with her arms folded around herself in the direction of MH as [complainant 5] runs past her. [Complainant 4] is seen to enter MH as recorded on the courtyard camera.

[614] Approximately three minutes later she exits MH through a separate door wearing a jacket. She climbs over a partition in the courtyard and walks back in the direction of Venuti. It is clear that she is struggling to walk in a straight line as recorded on the CCTV camera at the dentists’ premises.

[615] Approximately 50 minutes later, as recorded on the camera at the dentists’ premises, [complainant 4] and Roberto Jaz leave Venuti and walk in the direction of MH. Roberto Jaz is walking normally showing no signs of any limitation or intoxication. To the contrary [complainant 4], a few paces behind him, looks disoriented, is shaking her head with her arms wrapped around herself. She again struggles to walk in a straight line.

[616] As recorded on the MH courtyard CCTV camera, both get to MH. Roberto Jaz is on his phone and [complainant 4] goes to the front door continuing to show signs of disorientation and sits down on the ground in front of the door. Roberto Jaz, in a casual way, has his back to her, still on his phone, and at times turns and observes her sitting on the ground. He walks off in the direction of Peterborough Street, she gets up and follows.

[617] They are recorded on a CCTV camera located at a commercial premises on the corner of Peterborough Street and Colombo Street walking south on Peterborough

Street in the direction of Calendar Girls. [Complainant 4] is still showing signs of disorientation and at times she walks next to Roberto Jaz and at times falls behind.


[618] They are both recorded on a CCTV camera in the foyer of Calendar Girls. They enter and move upstairs where further cameras are operating. Roberto Jaz is walking and acting normally. [Complainant 4] still shows signs of disorientation.

[619] In the upper area of Calendar Girls there are various recordings of [complainant 4] as she meets and sits with friends, is seen sitting at one point in another location next to the bar, and also at the bar. It is clear that Roberto Jaz remained for a short time only before leaving Calendar Girls. [Complainant 4] leaves approximately 35 minutes after arrival.

[620] In oral evidence [complainant 4] said that until she saw the CCTV footage she was unaware that there was a second trip to Venuti with Roberto Jaz and accepted that some of the things that she recalls him doing to her may have occurred on that second visit, thus explaining why at times she was unable to locate [complainant 5] at the restaurant.

[621] She said that the express reason for his invitation for them both to go to Venuti was to have a drink and he said that other staff members would follow. That did not occur and it was drugs and not alcohol that was offered.

[622] She said she had no sexual interest in Roberto Jaz at all but trusted him as an employer and was happy to have a drink as she had worked for him for some time as a school student and now after leaving school.

[623] She was referred to text messaging between herself and [complainant 5] over the next two days. The messages are entirely consistent with what [complainant 4] says occurred to her and, as will be seen, is consistent with what [complainant 5] says occurred. I set out those consistent messages from [complainant 4]’s cellphone:

[Complainant 4] I have told [name deleted] (boyfriend) just what he was trying to do

[Complainant 5] And that he drugged us?

[Complainant 4] We agreed to take it but were told it was just MD like 10 times

[Complainant 5] I know but this fully isn’t md aye?

[Complainant 4] No, its not. If I was passed out on the couch then no.

Can you please tell me everything he did and tried to do

[Complainant 5] Grabbing you, hooking up with you. I saw him on top of you, you were semi past out. He kept grabbing your face so he could kiss you or if you walk he would grab you and say [complainant 4] come here just do it just do it

[Complainant 4] That makes me feel sick

[Complainant 5] I was so high I was trying to stop it but I couldn’t see and he did it to me too! I didn’t know what to do

[Complainant 4] I couldn’t see either and my ears were ringing the whole time

[Complainant 5] Me too!! I have never felt that high. It was so scary. I am just happy we are okay and we got out before anything else happened

[Complainant 4] Did he actually do anything to me or try to, or you?

[Complainant 5] He actually hooked up with you when he was on top of you he was feeling you and shit I didn’t see to much what he did to you he was doing the same to me

[Complainant 4] Did I ask him to stop or say no? He was going to rape us [complainant 5]

[Complainant 5] Yes, you said no and you said no I can’t. I have a bf. He was so close to rapping you, your legs were spread and he looked like he was grinding and shit on you

[Complainant 4] Did I try to get away? [Complainant 5] Yes you got away. You hit him. [Complainant 4] Did he hit me back?

[Complainant 5] No no

[Complainant 4] Okay I don’t know what to do I feel disgusting

[Complainant 5] I feel disgusting too. I’m going to hospital now because I’m so high and I’m so sick. I am just getting a drug test and getting some meds. It wont be reported


[624] The next day, Sunday evening, there is a further exchange.

[Complainant 5] [Complainant 4], they said this is really serious. They want us to involve cops. I am so sick I am at this homestay hospital.

I need your help Idk what to say. My results came back I have to stay at hospital Bc I am so weak I am on a drip and they want to call the cops!!! Help help

[Complainant 4] Should I come see you? What have you said to them?

[Complainant 5] What happened because I was high as a kite and I am so scared and I am so scared I cant sleep. I feel sick

[Complainant 4] I feel sick too. I am scared

[Complainant 5] Is this okay that the police get involved. All the doctors looking after me and nurses said this is one of the really bad assaults

[Complainant 4] The whole thing felt like a nightmare.

[Complainant 5] I no ... it was a sexual assault no one has the right to give us these harsh drugs and try to have sex with us while we are passing out. You were even hitting him to stop and yelling stop!! Do you want to come here they have moved me to the clinic. They would love to see you and see if you are okay

[Complainant 4] Where?

[Complainant 5] Cambridge Clinic, 134 Be alley Ave

[Complainant 4] Did they confirm of a date rape drug from results

[complainant 5] Not yet take a while to get my results. They have taken blood and other testing ...but they can confirm this is a very harsh drug. I should not be this weak and still feeling spaced out. I don’t have to involve you if you don’t want to x

[Complainant 4] I don’t know what to do

[Complainant 5] Its up to you but what he did was so fucked up they said this is one of the worst cases they have had in a while

[Complainant 4] Have the police been called yet

[Complainant 5] Yeah

[Complainant 4] have you spoken to them

[Complainant 5] No it dont want to because I cant talk about it again so the doctors are

[Complainant 4] What did you tell them

[Complainant 5] I told them what happened. They grabbed your name

... I said you cant remember much whatever you want to say is up to you. You can tell them what you no and who it was and what not or you can just ...


[625] [Complainant 4] said that she spoke to the police after these messages at 10:35 pm on 15 July 2018. She went to a specialist doctor, Dr Tucker. Tests were done, blood was taken and she was interviewed by EVI on 18 July 2018.

[626] Ms Aickin cross-examined for Roberto Jaz. She established the amount of alcohol that [complainant 4] had had that evening but with no impact upon the Crown case that [complainant 4] had been stupefied.

[627] Ms Aickin also repeated her previous reference to the practice of testing drugs at the time of purchase and before consumption. [Complainant 4] admitted to having MDMA that evening and then going out to Riccarton to her dealer to get some more. She said the drugs she got that evening from her dealer were not tested but she had always received good quality MDMA from that person in the past. She said she had never had an adverse reaction to anything that had been supplied by that person.

[628] She admitted to having some of those drugs in the toilet at MH after having returned from Riccarton and also drinking further alcohol. She accepted that she shared her MDMA with a bartender at MH before [complainant 5] returned and says that overall that evening she may have had a total of three lines being the one before [complainant 5] left for the concert, one when they got back from Riccarton, and then a further line with the bartender, a man called [name deleted].

[629] She accepted that MDMA can make a person feel more affection and familiar with others but denied any interest at all in Roberto Jaz. She denied that she had been

flirting with him and said she had no sexual interest in him. All she thought she was doing was going to Venuti for a drink with Roberto Jaz and other staff.


[630] [Witness G] was recalled at the request of defence counsel after [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] gave evidence. She said that [complainant 4] was flirting with Roberto Jaz at MH and gave the impression that she wanted [witness G] to go. I prefer the consistent evidence of [complainant 4] that she has never had any sexual interest in Roberto Jaz.

[631] If [complainant 4] was interested in sexual contact with Roberto Jaz there would be no need to stupefy her as consensual sexual activity with [complainant 4] would no doubt have occurred at Venuti where he takes females for that purpose. Nor would she have resisted in the way she did to the extent of scratching him and receiving injuries herself.

[632] [Complainant 4] accepted that there may have been a time when she asked someone else at the bar if they had any more MDMA because she had run out but denies categorically that her memory losses were as a result of the mixture of drugs and alcohol that she had taken. She says what occurred to her was as a result of drugs given to her and [complainant 5] by Roberto Jaz at the restaurant. He said that it was MDMA but she and [complainant 5] considered it was not and immediately said so.

[633] Ms Aickin put to [complainant 4] that it was her that took the MDMA to Venuti and offered it to [complainant 5] and Roberto Jaz. In an appropriate retort she asked Ms Aickin if, as was put to her, she ran out of MDMA at MH and had to ask for more, how was it that she was able to offer MDMA later at Venuti? She was adamant that it was Roberto Jaz who had the drugs there and offered it to her and her friends.

[634] I consider it significant that when Roberto Jaz was interviewed (to which I will refer below) he made no reference at all to [complainant 4] offering drugs at the restaurant. He denied that any drugs were taken and said that he did not provide drugs.

[635] It was subsequent to his interview that on the stainless steel bench that [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] say that the lines were set out on by Roberto Jaz,

MDMA residue was found. Putting to [complainant 4] that she provided the MDMA was no more than a rear-guard attempt to overcome the existence of the MDMA residue which was found after Roberto Jaz was spoken to by police. The fact that he made no reference when interviewed that [complainant 4] provided drugs is relevant in my assessment of his entire interview and the defence challenge to both complainants.


[636] [Complainant 4] disagreed that her memory was so blank that she had to ask [complainant 5] what happened although accepted that she made that enquiry in the text messaging to which I refer above. It is in the nature of stupefaction that memories are corrupted and often have blanks but it is clear in the messaging that [complainant 4] refers to Roberto Jaz not only providing the drugs and saying it was MDMA but that both complainants said repeatedly it was not.

[637] [Complainant 4] denied she went back to Venuti the second time expressly to have a sexual encounter with Roberto Jaz repeating that it is only now that she is aware of the CCTV recordings that she went back there a second time. It was put to her that she never mentioned the second trip to Venuti because she did not want to disclose that to [her boyfriend]. Her response was that she made no reference to it because she had been drugged by Roberto Jaz and only now knows of the second trip.

[638] The defence challenge to the charges involving both these complainants had little or no impact upon the Crown case which relied upon the expert evidence and the compellingly consistent evidence of both complainants together with the propensity evidence establishing a tendency for Roberto Jaz to target staff and patrons and to stupefy them using the restaurant as a location for sexual offending.

[639] I have already dealt with the untenable theory that the symptoms experienced by [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] were the result of serotonin toxicity and which appeared to be directed at these complainants in particular.67

67 [136]-[158].


[640] Added to that case against Roberto Jaz is that his DNA was found on the underwear of [complainant 4],68 he had injuries consistent with her resisting him,69 and that he was found with a range of drugs of the type that can produce the symptoms experienced by both complainants.70

[641] In addition is Roberto Jaz’s police interview which is a progression of lies culminating in the ironic, and almost Freudian, suggestion that his own memory of the events that night may have been impacted by someone spiking his drink. I refer to those matters in further detail below.

[642] [Complainant 5]’s EVI was played, a transcript was provided and she gave supplementary oral evidence. She confirmed the dinner at Venuti to celebrate her [birthday] and then her attendance at a concert. She confirmed they had a line of MDMA before she went to the concert and on her return to MH had another line. She was driving her car and parked it near MH. She went into MH, met up with [complainant 4] but did not have a drink there. She had been there for a short time when a person she met offered her and [complainant 4] to go to where he worked to get some free drinks. He said that he had the key.

[643] She recalls going to the premises which she now knows was Venuti. He unlocked the door, deactivated the alarm and she expected to go to the bar to get a drink. However, she said they ended up in the kitchen and he produced a bag of white powder and poured some of it onto a table. She said he gave [complainant 4] a note so she could snort it saying that it was MDMA. [Complainant 4] said he could be trusted as she had worked for him for some time. The note was passed to her and she snorted a line. She was aware of what MDMA is like as she uses it as a recreational drug. She says that normally after MDMA she would feel fine but the drug given by the man had a completely different effect.

[644] She said as soon as she took it, it burnt her nose and burnt the back of her throat. She describes agonising pain. She says within seconds it was hard for her to

68 Section 9 admission 36-39.

69 Exhibit 1, images 214-218.

Roberto Jaz told his partner [witness G] that he was scratched at MH when breaking up a fight.

70 Section 9 admission 55-75.

see, to hear, to walk and to do anything herself. She said things went really blurry and that they were both screaming “what did you give us? This isn’t MDMA”. She said they were telling him to “fuck off” every time he would come near them and she recalls [complainant 4] hitting him. He said he would grab at them both and pull them over to him with kissing on lips and neck.


[645] She said that at the time the drugs were being consumed the man was saying “lick it up, lick it lick it, try to get as much, do as much as you can”. When he asked if she wanted more she said no because it hurt her nostrils and throat and when they protested that the drug was not what he said, he would say such things as “chill out, chill out”.

[646] She recalls running to the bathroom and was followed by the man, who she now knows is Roberto Jaz, and he shut the door after her. She was pushed up against the wall and he was kissing her. She found it hard to stand up. They then both left the bathroom and her next memory is lying on top of him. He was lying down on a booth seat and they were kissing. She recalls blacking out and that [complainant 4] was just falling around on the ground talking to herself. She remembers him on top of her and that her top was fully off and her legs spread open. She recalled that he had an erection, grinding against her.

[647] He was telling [complainant 4] to come over and she would respond by saying “fuck off” and then fall over. She recalls him pulling down her top and being near the door looking over and seeing [complainant 4] with her skirt right up with him grabbing her face and kissing her. She was passing out.

[648] She kept feeling like she just wanted to go to sleep. She sat on a chair and asked for a jersey and he told her to go to a cupboard where she found shirts. She identified the cupboard in the Venuti photographs.71 She recalls seeing [complainant 4] with no top on but with a bra.

[649] She then remembers being on the street and running. This is shown clearly in the CCTV. As she ran she saw [complainant 4] going back into MH. She got to her

71 Exhibit 1, images 35-66.

car to drive home. On the trip she pulled over and called a friend and told her what had happened. She then drove to her friend’s house. Her recollection was blurry and her memory has blanks.


[650] She does recall Roberto Jaz coming up behind her and hitting her backside really hard and pulling [complainant 4] around by her hair. She drew a diagram72 of the layout of Venuti consistent with photographs contained in Exhibit 1. She repeats in her EVI that throughout she continued to ask what drug was given to them, saying “fuck you, what did you give me” and that [complainant 4] constantly said she wanted to leave but he said to stay.

[651] She recalls his finger in her mouth while she was lying down. It had the drug on it, that he said was MDMA, and that he was biting her and pulling her hair also. Throughout she “felt like it wasn’t even real, like it wasn’t actually happening”.

[652] Her description of how the drug affected her was like she had dived into a pool and was under water. She said “like I couldn’t hear, I couldn’t see, I was not in control of my body. I felt like a walking doll, like I couldn’t do anything by myself. It was hard for me to talk. I have never felt that way ever”.

[653] She has a specific recollection of Roberto Jaz grabbing her hair, pulling her over to him, and grabbing her vagina by his hand. That is when she slapped him before passing out again. She noted his hands running up her legs under her skirt “quite a lot”. She said that he seemed drunk but, as with [complainant 4], she did not see him take any of the drugs himself. She said he was helping her and [complainant 4] to walk so he seemed way more sober than them both. At one point he was kissing her and asked [complainant 4] to join in but she refused and was stumbling around.

[654] As to her own state of intoxication, she said that she was not intoxicated before going to Venuti having paced herself throughout the night.

72 Exhibit 30.


[655] She was referred to Exhibit 1, image 210, a text message to a friend in the early hours of the morning. It is consistent with what she says in evidence about being drugged. She says to her friend:

OMG I was just drugged thus old guy gave me what he says was MDMA but you wasn’t I woke up to him on top of me ... in café that he broke into I feel sick.


[656] She was cross-examined as to the amount of alcohol she had that night. She admitted to drinking but was able to drive her car. It was put to her that she had a certain number of drinks at MH before going down to Venuti but said she cannot recall. Her answer is the evidence.

[657] She agreed she went to Venuti because Roberto Jaz had offered drinks and that she did see shot glasses lined up at the bar but does not recall having a drink. She was clear in cross-examination that Roberto Jaz provided the drugs and that he appeared to be in charge of his senses but she and [complainant 4] were not. She has a clear recollection of both of [complainant 4] and herself protesting about what the drug was. She denies that being kissed in the toilet was consensual saying that she could do nothing about it because of the drug.

[658] She accepted that at one point at the restaurant [complainant 4] had pushed her away but said that it was her perception that [complainant 4] was out of her mind on the drug and that is why she was acting the way she did. It was put to her that she did not see Roberto Jaz doing anything at all to [complainant 4] but was emphatic in her denial of that proposition. It was suggested that if she saw anything it was consensual activity between [complainant 4] and Roberto Jaz but she denied that absolutely. She also denied that she had any sexual interest in Roberto Jaz.

[659] The diagram drawn during her EVI (Exhibit 30) is consistent with the diagram drawn by [complainant 4], a consistency, one of many, which contradicts Roberto Jaz’s denial at interview that a second female was present.

[660] At this point, without any reference to any other evidence, both complainants are consistent in their account of events and their communications afterward. They

are emphatic in their denials that they had a sexual interest in Roberto Jaz and that anything that occurred was consensual.


[661] That consistent account needs to be considered in conjunction with what Roberto Jaz said when interviewed by [Detective Y] on 16 July 2018, before statements were taken from either complainant by EVI. [Complainant 4] was interviewed on 18 July 2018 and [complainant 5] on 17 July 2018.

Roberto Jaz’s Interview


[662] [Detective Y] interviewed Roberto Jaz on 16 September 2018, the Monday morning after the complaint’s made by [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] and before they were interviewed by EVI. The interview commences at 8.47 am at the Christchurch Central Police Station. Roberto Jaz had been arrested for supplying Class B drugs and was given his rights. He did not exercise his right to counsel. He confirmed that after completing his shift at Venuti he got changed and went to MH, had some drinks and then went to the Casino around 4.30 am – 5 am, getting home around 6.30 am after being at the Casino for about two hours. He drove home.

[663] When asked for detail as to what he did when at MH he refers to drinking, dancing, getting ice from Venuti and “that’s pretty much it until the bar closed”.

[664] When asked if he took anyone else with him to Venuti he responds “To be completely honest, with one of our staff members – she needed to use the bathroom – and that would have been, just actually remembering my night, probably after maybe 2.30, 3ish I think.” He names that staff member as [complainant 4] who was at MH with another girl called [witness T].

[665] He repeats “... to be honest, she needed to use the bathroom ... and obviously the bathrooms were quite full in there and I offered to take her down the road because she wants to go to the bathroom.” He said to her “Hey, look, I’m going down, I’m going grab some stuff ... if you want you can use the bathroom there.”

[666] He denies taking drugs that evening.

[667] The detective then advises that the police have had a complaint that he had been supplying a Class B drug, supposedly MDMA, to people at the bar. He says the complaints are from two separate girls and when asked what he had to say about that Roberto Jaz responds “I’ve got no knowledge of that, no ... definitely not me.” He denies knowing [complainant 5] but says the trip to Venuti was with [complainant 4] alone and that there was no other girl. When the detective provides additional information, that the invitation to Venuti was for some free drinks, Roberto Jaz concedes he offered a drink “to them” saying “which I probably shouldn’t have but I definitely didn’t give them any drugs”.

[668] When asked why he said “them” he responds “Um I offered a drink to [complainant 4], I should’ve said. My apologies”.

[669] The detective provides further information concerning the complaints saying that both girls have stated he offered them MDMA to which he replies “I definitely didn’t”.

[670] Further information is given by the detective to the effect that the girls realised that it was not MDMA and he responds “It’s definitely not from me”.

[671] He was then confronted with the fact that [complainant 4] knows him and worked with him and would be unlikely to confuse him with another person who offered them a white powder. He responds:

“... obviously, if I can speak freely ... they were in, ah, Mama Hooch and I overheard and I don’t know whether I heard correctly um, um that they had, um, potentially done some drugs, and this is not coming from me and before they had come out. Now, I didn’t know if I heard it correctly but one of the girls, um, who works for us, [witness T], she had, obviously, appeared to be slightly sort of, maybe intoxicated, I don’t know so I offered her to drink some water at Mama Hooch um, you could probably question them to see whether there was anything consumed before ... and that’s definitely not come from me.”


[672] The detective says that the complainants had both admitted consuming MDMA before going out and have knowledge of the effects of that drug. He expands by saying that they say the white powder provided by Roberto Jaz definitely was not MDMA and he responds “I’ve got no idea why they would say that”.

[673] The detective then asked what else went on while you were down there and Roberto Jaz responds “Ah, not a lot. I mean, if you can keep this confidential, she sort of said to me she likes me, she’s attracted to me and then she began sort of, like, obviously, to kiss me and stuff and then you know obviously, it was a bit sort of awkward and then, ah, from that point she just snapped out and there was, I got this mark on my neck from her.” He points to an injury to his neck saying that [complainant 4] then said “Oh, I got to go, I got to go”.

[674] Roberto Jaz states that he offered her a taxi and that when she left he was confused.

[675] He says that the kissing that occurred was mutual after which she scratched his neck thinking she might have been drunk. He says he did not know she was on any drugs.

[676] He denies there was a second girl there throughout the half an hour or so that he was at Venuti with [complainant 4] and repeats that he did not supply any drugs.

[677] After a break the detective returns to the presence of another female at Venuti to which Roberto Jaz responds that he had been drinking “I could have potentially, been had too much”. He then expands by saying that he and [complainant 4] both had a shot of Limoncello each and when asked if there was any other physical contact beyond kissing he says “Ah, to be honest, she started to grope me and then obviously you know one thing led to another, it wasn’t really, there was not sex involved”.

[678] He goes further by saying she undid his pants and performed oral sex “to my knowledge” after which she said “it’s too much” so he grabbed her to see if she was ok after which she grabbed him, kissed him and scratched his neck.

[679] He denies being forceful but was shocked at the scratch and his thoughts turned to her welfare when he asked if she was alright and wanted a cab.

[680] The detective then provides further information by reference to the statement made by [complainant 5]. He says that [complainant 5] was asked to accompany

[witness D] to Venuti, which she did, and that he poured a white powder in the kitchen. His response was “I don’t recall that ever happening”.


[681] When the detective then advises that both girls say they became disoriented after consuming the white powder provided by him his response is “Um, definitely didn’t do that, from, my knowledge and my recollection of the night”.

[682] The detective then adds further detail referring to a reference by one of the girls to him wanting to eat her pussy. He concedes he may have said that but does not recall word for word on the night.

[683] The detective then says that [complainant 5] has also been interviewed confirming that she was there and that he offered white powder saying it was MDMA and asks if he has an explanation as to why both girls would be saying that.

[684] Roberto Jaz responds by saying “I don’t recall, unless they’d done it and I’ve, you know, maybe missed it, I don’t know, you know because I don’t recall ever taking it out, so that’s why I’m a bit sort of gobsmacked as to what happened on that night”.

[685] The detective then expands upon information from [complainant 5], saying that she observed Roberto Jaz on top of [complainant 4] in a booth and grinding on her and [complainant 4] saying stop and that [complainant 5] says that she heard Roberto Jaz asking EM to come here and that it was fine.

[686] His response is “Um, so that’s a, that’s a blur to me, that part. I don’t recall that happening, I recall it happening, in the back room, not on the booth seat”.

[687] The detective further expands upon information from [complainant 5] saying that he put his fingers in her mouth with more white powder and when asked to explain that he responds “Yeah, this is where I’m sort of confused on the night, you know, as to what physically happened down there between me and [complainant 4] and as I said I don’t recall there being a third person”.

[688] Roberto Jaz says that what happened was reciprocal, [complainant 4] did not say stop it and repeats his denial of giving them anything and then refers to both girls consuming drugs that night and that they for some reason “possibly targeted me”.

[689] At this point the detective refers to a medical examination of [complainant 4] confirming bruises and marks consistent with biting.

[690] In response Roberto Jaz says that is disturbing and it “doesn’t sound like me” and when asked for an explanation he says:

“To be honest, as I said, I had been drinking so, um, so as I said, you know, amongst the night, you know, I have, a vague memory of what happened. You know I remember bits and pieces, I mean, obviously it stacks up because I’ve said the times, um where I’ve been, where I’ve gone, but obviously I’ve been drinking I must have been a bit probably heavily intoxicated then.”


[691] When told that [complainant 4] says that her vagina had been touched Roberto Jaz “I definitely touched her vagina and that she had pushed his hand onto her bum”.

[692] When asked for an explanation to respond to the consistency of what both girls are saying he refers again to the fact that he was drinking then, remarkably in my view, says:

“As I’d been drinking, you know, could I have had something put in my drink possibly ... you know, which has got me concerned now by why I am thinking that I’ve, not remembering parts of the night.”


[693] The detective refers to further detail in [complainant 5]’s statement that the drugs she took hurt her throat and nose and she remembers Roberto Jaz being on top of her with his pants down and her pants down also and he responds “That’s the part I can’t recall ... that’s what’s got me confused, you know? I’m not actually legitimately telling a lie” and refers to the possibility of his own drink being spiked saying:

“I could potentially have had something put in my drink, I don’t know, which has made sort of losing memory.”


[694] After a break the detective recaps, referring to the trip to the casino which Roberto Jaz confirms but makes no reference to taking [complainant 4] to Calendar Girls.

[695] Returning to the charge of offering MDMA the officer wishes to confirm the denial to which Roberto Jaz says “Yeah, to my knowledge, yes ... well, to the best of my knowledge ... cos, as I said, I’d been drinking ... you know, so, but, ah, that’s what I’m saying is from, from my point of the night, you know, has some, have I consumed something in a drink? You know it’s a possibility that I’ve having sort of memory loss”.

[696] When asked by the detective who would be spiking his drinks he says it is a possibility that his drink could have had something in it.

[697] Later in the interview he confirms that the interior lock at Venuti can be simply disengaged and that [complainant 4] would know that.

[698] He then confirms the sequence of events that he touched her vagina, she has become erratic and scratched him and then gone back to normal and kissed him again leading him to question whether she was ok.

[699] When asked again about the “white powder thing” Roberto Jaz responds:

“Yeah, that’s, that’s the thing I don’t, I don’t recall that that part. Um yeah like to be honest it’s a blur to me you know that part. Like how would I explain it? I mean it’s obviously not sounding right from how you are hearing it but I mean could they have done something in there if they were in there if the second person was there on their own without my knowledge.”


[700] The account given by Roberto Jaz develops as [Detective Y] provides more information. It progresses from an offer to use the toilet at Venuti, to the offer of a drink, to a consensual kiss, to consuming a drink, to further sexual activity, consistent denials of providing drugs or that a third person was there but then eventually progressed to a lack of any recollection as matters became a blur. He explains that as resulting from a possible spiking of his own drink at MH thus causing gaps in his memory. He makes no reference to Calendar Girls and when confronted with the medical examination of [complainant 4] confirming scratches and bites on her body he refers to the possibility that he may have similar marks on his body as well but he has not checked.

[701] My observation of the CCTV footage of Roberto Jaz returning from Venuti and then later at Calendar Girls is that he appears to be in control of himself and shows no

signs of intoxication or disorientation whatsoever. Whereas, to the contrary, [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] are significantly different in their demeanour on returning from Venuti after they say they were drugged.


[702] Roberto Jaz admitted to driving his vehicle home, consistent with my observation of his sobriety.

[703] The suggestion that his drink may have been spiked is in my view a desperate attempt to explain a fabricated claim to a lack of memory of matters which both complainants say occurred. It shows not only a knowledge that drinks can be spiked, and that memory can be lost as a result, but is a subliminal and subconscious acknowledgement of what the evidence in this case establishes as to his own behaviour in spiking drinks to facilitate sexual offending.

[704] Roberto Jaz’s interview is as disingenuous, self-serving and deliberately false as the letter he wrote to his father and which was found at the family home at Bishop Street, Christchurch.73

[705] The letter is an apology to his father Michael “for my actions that occurred in the early hours on the 15th of July 2018 at your establishment Venuti Restaurant.” Three copies of the letter were found. One of them is dated 30 August 2018 and refers to the termination of Roberto Jaz’s employment. That letter is set out verbatim (sic) below.

Dear Michael Mendo Jaz (Dad),

I am writing you this letter of apology for my actions that occurred in the early hours of the 15th of July 2018 at your establishment Venuti Restaurant (Jaz Holdings Limited).

I am truely and sincerely sorry for taking a female to Venuti to use the bathroom. Whilst there i offered her a drink which i didnt think much into at the time, after a couple of drinks we began talking and she told me she liked me, one thing lead to another which resulted in some consensual sexual activity between us. My intentions were not to do this at all, it was a spur of the moment thing.

I know that i should not have utilised the venue for this kind of activity however this particular female had been previously flirting with me that

73 Exhibit 1, image 110.

particular evening, also weeks prior to this event occurring (still doesnt excuse this kind of activity). Knowing that i was going through a break up with my partner at the time, (trying to patch things up with the ex but the spark was lost) I had the impression with her flirtacious behaviour and a mix of some alcohol (also now knowing she has admitted taking drugs that evening) i still felt this was concensual as it was initiated by her.

I know that this has put stress on you and the family. I am truly sorry for the repercussions this has caused as a result I am aware that my position at your establishment is terminated.

I am truely sadend by this result but I agree with the decision you have made. I know i will never receive a position as good anywhere, but i acted alone and did not think of the consequences at the time nor did i think it was going to result to this as it was some consensual fun.

As a result of my job being terminated i can no longer afford to pay you monthly for the repayments on the family house at 11 Bishop Street St Albans Christchurch, therefore i would like you to please remove my name from the title. Until I get my feet back on the ground I may need some help financially and i will repay you as soon as i can.

Once again i am truely sorry for this and i hope you can forgive me. Kind regards

Roberto Jaz (your son)


[706] Roberto Jaz apologises to his father for what he says was a spontaneous sexual engagement with a flirtatious woman at Venuti Restaurant. He appears to justify it by the fact that he and his partner are having a break but then appears also to place blame on the female because she had admitted taking drugs that evening. He said everything was consensual but initiated by her.

[707] The content of the letter compounds my clear impression that Roberto Jaz lied to the police officer and is lying to his father. He uses Venuti as a venue for sexual contact, both consensual and non-consensual. He uses Venuti as a place to drug females and offend against them without their consent or any possible reasonable belief in consent.

[708] The apology to his father is disingenuous in the extreme and gives an insight into Roberto Jaz’s character and motivations consistent with the propensities established by the evidence and his willingness to exploit females as playthings who exist for his benefit and whose rights for which he has complete disregard.

[709] Not to be outdone, Danny Jaz shows the same mendacity when speaking to journalists about police publicity concerning complaints of drink spiking at MH.74 He said “If we caught those responsible, God help them, I’d break their hands and hand them over to the police”. At this point his brother had been charged and he had himself drugged and sexually offended against multiple victims.

[710] [Witness T] gave evidence. She was 17 at the time. They were celebrating [complainant 5]’s [birthday]. She had seen both [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] on drugs before and they were never out of control. To the contrary they were sociable and happy. She says that having left the dinner at Venuti they were not intoxicated and confirmed that they had “bump” of MDMA in [complainant 5]’s car before she went to a concert. She accompanied [complainant 4] when they went to Riccarton for another cap of MDMA. They took a small amount each in the toilets at MH. She went home about 1 am having lost contact with [complainant 4].

[711] The Crown called [witness U], a staff member of Venuti. On 15 July 2018 she finished her shift and then worked behind the bar at MH. She is yet another person who says Roberto Jaz gets drinks for himself and others.

[712] At one point [complainant 24] asks her if she wanted to come to Venuti as Roberto Jaz is offering lines. [Witness U] declined as she does not use drugs.

[713] In cross-examination she refused to accept that [complainant 4] was offering the drugs, repeating that the advice from [complainant 4] was that Roberto Jaz was providing them.

[714] [Witness V] gave evidence. She works at Calendar Girls. Her shift finished around 5 am on 15 July. She knows [complainant 4] and saw her come in. She was swaying and could not walk in a straight line. She thought she must have been drunk or on drugs. Her eyes were blank, she was not talking clearly so she took her to a seating area. Her head was going from side to side and what she observed was different than what she knows to be the effect of MDMA. She has seen [complainant

74 Exhibit 1, images 262-265.

4] on MDMA in the past where she is stimulated, happy and coherent. She stayed with her until she was able to leave in an uber.


[715] Through her work [witness V] is aware of the effects of drugs and alcohol and has seen people affected by both. She said [complainant 4]’s appearance of 9/10 intoxication was not as a result of alcohol alone.

[716] [Witness C], the partner of [witness V], gave evidence. She was sober and was there to pick up her partner. She was a no-nonsense direct witness who clearly had considerable life experience and was aware of the effect of alcohol and drugs on others. She expressed the clear view that [complainant 4]’s state was not brought about by alcohol alone.

[717] [Witness W] gave evidence. She is a friend of [complainant 5]. They had drunk together, smoked cannabis together and had used MDMA together. She says when on MDMA, [complainant 5] is excited, dancing and friendly. She went to the concert with [complainant 5] on 14 July where they drank water and danced. They were both sober when they left. She was the person that received a text message at 4.17 am75 referred to above.

[718] The text is admissible as another consistent statement and was followed by a phone call between them both in which [complainant 5] repeated what was said in the earlier text message, saying that she and her friend [complainant 4] had been given powder said to be MDMA but it was not. [Complainant 5] said that she was in and out of consciousness and that the man that gave her the powder would go between both girls and put more powder in their mouths.

[719] She recalls that the conversation took place when [complainant 5] was parked in a car. Her voice was flat in a way that she had never heard before. She told her to go to [their friend]’s house where she would be safe.

[720] [Witness W] went to [their friend]’s house the next morning and noticed [complainant 5] was distressed. She was not doing what she typically does after

75 Exhibit 1, image 210.

drinking too much, complaining about a hangover, but to the contrary was quiet and lethargic. She said she was like a Zombie and out of it. [Complainant 5] repeated to her that after the concert she had met with [complainant 4] and gone down to Venuti with “an old guy with a beard”. She said the drug that they were given burnt her nose straight away.


[721] After taking [complainant 5] to the Cambridge Clinic this witness took her to see [complainant 4] where she observed bruises on [complainant 4]’s forehead and bites on her torso.

[722] [Witness X] gave evidence. She was at the concert with [complainant 5] and then at [their friend]’s party afterwards. She said she had seen [complainant 5] after using cannabis and MDMA before and her condition was different to the effect that those drugs had had on her.

[723] [Witness Y] gave evidence. He is [complainant 4]’s partner. She told him of the drug said to be MDMA but she did not think it was. She told him there was a quick reaction to the drug and she felt like she was underwater and could not move. She referred to the man who gave her the drugs as Roberto and that she recalls lying in a booth and being pushed around by him.

[724] [Witness Z] gave evidence. He was at the concert with [complainant 5]. He went back to [their friend]’s party and recalls getting a telephone call from [complainant 5] around 4 am. She was sober at the concert but by now she was mumbling and destressed. He recalls her coming into [their friend]’s party and was in and out of consciousness “like a zombie”. He described her eyes as twitching rapidly and rolling back. He had never seen her like that before. He describes her as like coming out of an anaesthetic which is something that he himself had recently experienced.

[725] [Witness D] gave evidence. She was at the concert with [complainant 5] and also at [their friend]’s party. She recalls [complainant 5] turning up in shock, crying, panicked and upset. She had never seen her like that before. She told her that she had

been at a place with [complainant 4] where a man gave her something and that she had been raped.76 She did not know the man but [complainant 4] did.


[726] Dr Jessica Tucker gave evidence. She is a DSAC doctor and read from her two formal written statements concerning [complainant 4] and [complainant 5]. Her expertise to give an opinion was not in question. She examined [complainant 4] at

11.30 pm on 15 July 2018. [Complainant 4] was aged [deleted] and gave a description of the assault as occurring at approximately 4 am that day – 20 hours before the examination.


[727] She was told by [complainant 4] that the alleged assault took place in the dining room of a restaurant and that she was given powder which she believed to be MDMA. She inhaled it and was immediately unable to see, move or speak, experiencing ringing in her ears and having patchy memories following this. She reported being in and out of consciousness and had a recollection of more powder being put into her mouth.

[728] This account is yet a further admissible prior consistent statement.

[729] She said she recollected oral contact of her face and neck, biting of her neck, abdomen and breasts, the defendant lying on top of her, oral genital contact on her, digital genital contact on her, the defendant throwing her around and picking her up by the hair and that at one point the defendant’s hand was around her neck applying pressure for several seconds.

[730] Of potential significance was that in court [complainant 4] referred to Roberto Jaz’s penis in her mouth but made no reference of that to the doctor. She also told the doctor there was oral sex on her together with digital penetration but that is inconsistent with what she said in evidence.

76 The defence objected to the admissibility of the word “rape” as there is no charge of rape against Roberto Jaz or any evidence of sexual intercourse with [complainant 5]. I ruled against the objection in my Trial ruling No 5. The word was used as part of [complainant 5]’s complaint of sexual assault and can be seen as that. It does not mean she is alleging rape. It is admissible as relevant (s 7 Evidence Act 2006) and cannot be excluded under s 8.


[731] This was the subject of understandable cross-examination and needs to be resolved by me in assessing whether the Crown has proven any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

[732] There were those inconsistencies but that is to be expected. [Complainant 4] was drugged and cannot be expected to have a precise recollection of what occurred. To the contrary, a precise and consistent recollection on all details would be inconsistent with stupefaction. The real and significant point is that not only has [complainant 4] been consistent in her police statement and evidence in Court on central issues, she is equally consistent in her essential narrative of events to the doctor. She puts herself at Venuti with Roberto Jaz. She is given a drug which is not what he says it was. She is assaulted sexually. She scratches him. She is bitten and groped. She is physically assaulted.

[733] The challenge to her credibility on the basis of inconsistencies have no impact on me. They exist but are entirely explicable. In addition, [complainant 4] is not only consistent in an overall sense in what she says out of Court and in Court, but is consistent with the account given by [complainant 5].

[734] In contrast, Roberto Jaz lies to the police and his father. I have reminded myself that people lie for various reasons, not necessarily consistent with guilt. However, in this case I consider that Roberto Jaz’s lies to the police and his minimising and false apology to his father are consistent with guilt and can only be explained in that way and I thus take his lies into account when determining if the Crown has proved any of the charges concerning [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] beyond reasonable doubt.77

[735] The doctor noted that [complainant 4] had bruises on her right forehead and right jaw. She had an abrasion on her right neck and a linear area of redness on her

77 I heard evidence that Roberto Jaz was arrested at the airport and taken to the police station for interview by [Detective Y]. He had a return ticket to Australia and personal belongings. The s 9 admission contains a jobsheet detailing the arrest, the return ticket and the contents of his bag. If it was intended that I consider his intended departure, on the heels of the complaints by [complainant 4] and [complainant 5], as fleeing the New Zealand jurisdiction and proof of a guilty mind, I do not. There is no safe basis to infer anything more than an intended holiday. I give this no weight.

left neck below the angle of her jaw. Inside her mouth there was a small ulcer being a break in the mucosa.


[736] On her left upper abdomen she had a bruise with a slightly patterned appearance with several pinpoint bruises below that. The bruise was reported to be tender.

[737] On her upper left back she had a bruise which was round and pink. In the midline of her upper back she had pinpoint bruises reported to be tender and on her upper right back were similar pinpoint bruises. In her right middle back there was an abrasion which was linear and dry.

[738] There was a pre-existing abrasion on her right thumb and bruises on her right shin. A genital examination was normal. Swabs were collected for analysis and hair samples were taken.

[739] The doctor gave the usual evidence that it is not possible to determine the exact nature of the force which may cause an injury or to age bruising. She confirmed however that, what might be contrary to popular perception, a mouth ulcer is no more than the disruption to the mucosal membrane and said in evidence that the ulcer inside the mouth of [complainant 4] could have been caused by a fingernail.

[740] In cross-examination she said she was unable to age the bruising on [complainant 4]’s body but the bruises were sufficiently fresh to not have begun yellowing and thus were less than 18 hours old. She said the abrasions were similarly fresh and apart from the pre-existing injury to the thumb, had not scabbed.

[741] Her formal written statement concerning the allegation of pressure to the neck was not led and I give no weight to the report by [complainant 4] that had occurred. The Crown did not pursue it. The doctor referred to anatomical diagrams which record the location of the injuries to [complainant 4]78 and summarised her findings as:

Significant findings on examination of the body were multiple minor bruises and abrasions. The injuries were caused by contact with blunt objects or

78 Exhibit 34.

surfaces. The petechial bruises were caused by suction, pressure or traction to the skin. The bruises and abrasions on the complainant were on multiple surfaces of her body (front and back) and some were on areas on the body e.g. the jaw, neck and abdomen which are less likely to get injured during usual day to day activity.


[742] It is her opinion that the injury pattern is suggestive of a physical assault.

[743] The doctor gave similar evidence concerning [complainant 5]. She recorded that [complainant 5] said she inhaled powder given to her that she was told was MDMA. She reported immediately experiencing a sensation of feeling underwater, being unable to see, hear, stand or walk and having patchy memories following this. She too had a recollection of more powder being placed in her mouth.

[744] Her recollections included oral contact to her face and neck, biting of her lips and fingers, slapping of her back and buttocks, the man lying naked on top of her, the defendant rubbing his penis against her genitalia but was unaware if penetration occurred. She recalled the man grabbing her when she rolled away.

[745] There was a similar reference to pressure to her neck which was not pursued by the Crown and to which I do not give any weight. [Complainant 5] reported experiencing nausea and feeling “spaced out” at the time of the examination which took place at the Cambridge Clinic in Christchurch at 4 am on 15 July 2018, 12 hours after the alleged assault.

[746] The doctor noted that [complainant 5]’s pupils appeared slightly dilated. She had abrasions on her right arm and pre-existing abrasions on her right thigh. She had an abrasion on her left knee. A genital examination was normal. Hair samples were collected for testing.

[747] The doctor concluded that the abrasions were caused by a combination of force and movement over the areas of the body where they occurred but it was not possible to determine the exact circumstances. She said that the most likely cause of the dilated pupils was drug use.

[748] The s 9 document admits the presence of Roberto Jaz’s DNA on the outside crotch of [complainant 4]’s underwear and that a swab of white powder residue taken from a bench in the kitchen area at Venuti on 16 July 2018 contained traces of MDMA.

[749] The s 9 document also confirms that an ESR standard drug analysis is capable of detecting a wide range of controlled substances, medicines, cutting agents and other substances. The compounds ephylone, citalopram, chlorpheniramine and 7 amino- flunitrazepam would therefore be routinely detected using standard procedures. Clearly many other drugs would not be routinely detected.

[750] The document goes on to say that the analysis of the swab from Venuti taken on 16 July 2018 classifies the presence of any drugs as “trace analysis” and therefore compounds listed may not have been detected in the swab if they had been present at very low levels.

[751] I refer at this point a reference to Telco call data and SMS messaging between [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] included in the s 9 admission.79 I understand this is included at the request of defence counsel.

[752] Some of the content of the messaging I have already referred to and some was the subject of cross-examination. I have considered all of the data and messaging and suffice it to say that they do not assist the defence case. Indeed the relevance of some of the content escapes me.

[753] The s 9 document also gives considerable detail under the heading Biological Samples.80 Paragraphs 10-25 of the s 9 admission relevantly state:

79 Section 9 admission, pages 8-19.

80 Section 9 admission, paras 10-35.


(b) No alcohol was detected in the blood or urine.

(c) Acetone was detected at a level of 40 milligrams per litre in the blood sample and 280 milligrams per litre in the urine sample. Normal acetone levels as a result of human metabolism in blood of healthy individuals are usually lower than 10 milligrams per litre.

(d) Elevated blood and urine acetone concentrations arise from uncontrolled diabetes or a prolonged period of fasting starving or exercise. Chronic alcohol use and hypothermia may also result in elevated acetone levels. Elevated levels may also result from occupation exposure involving inhalation of solvents and glues containing acetone.

(e) The blood and urine were analysed for evidence of a range of medicinal drugs and drugs of abuse.

(f) MDMA and MDA were detected. The blood level of MDMA was

.04 milligrams per litre. The level of MDA was too low to quantify. MDA is most likely present as breakdown of MDMA. The level in [complainant 4]’s blood could be consistent with recreational use of MDMA.


(g) THC was found in the blood consistent with smoking the equivalent of a single cannabis cigarette within 1-12 hours prior to the blood sample being taken.

(h) Ephylone was detected in the blood and urine of [complainant 4]. Ephylone is a new synthetic stimulant drug with psychoactive and euphoric properties. No other drugs were detected in the blood and urine.

[754] In summary the analytical results show [complainant 4] had used MDMA, cannabis and ephylone. Acetone was also present in the blood and urine at elevated

levels. There is no evidence to suggest that [complainant 4] had used alcohol or any other drugs. The analyst could not say when these drugs were used or how much [complainant 4] was affected by them.


[755] I interpolate that the reference to “There is no evidence to suggest that [[complainant 4]] had used alcohol or any other drugs” must refer to drugs that were actually tested for and not those that were not tested for.

[756] The analyst said that given the time between the taking of the sample and the analysis, any alcohol in [complainant 4]’s blood may have been removed by normal metabolic processes.

[757] The admission refers to a blood sample taken from [complainant 5] at 1805 hours on 15 July 2018 and a urine sample taken at the same time. There was a delay of 14 hours between the time of the alleged incident and the time the samples were taken. The admission at paras 26-35 relevantly state:

[758] At the conclusion of the Crown case I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all charges had been established concerning the complainants [complainant 4] and [complainant 5]. I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that MDMA had been offered to both complainants by Roberto Jaz and that Charges 60 and 61 were proved.

[759] Furthermore I was satisfied that [complainant 4] and [complainant 5] were stupefied by the drugs given to them, possibly high strength MDMA (SMRK) or one of the new psychoactive drugs possessed by Roberto Jaz, but the Crown do not need to prove the exact identity of the drug.

[760] I reject any suggestion that any contact with [complainant 4] or [complainant 5] at Venuti was consensual. I reject entirely Roberto Jaz’s account of events which developed as the interview went on in response to the information provided by the interviewer. His denials of providing the drug are rejected. His suggestion that his own drink may have been drugged, in an attempt to avoid the reality of what the complainants say, is utterly implausible.

[761] The elements of stupefying are proved in relation to both complainants resulting in the convictions on Charges 58 and 59. He deliberately stupefied both complainants to facilitate sexual offending. As I have mentioned when dealing with the evidence of Professor Drummer, the suggestion of serotonin syndrome/toxicity is speculative and is far from established as a defence to these or any other charges.

[762] In entering these convictions I take into account not only the consistent accounts given by both complainants, allowing for faulty recollections directly as a result of the stupefaction at the hands of Roberto Jaz, their consistent statements to others and the evidence of Roberto Jaz’s propensity to target and drug staff and patrons, and commit offences against them at Venuti.

[763] Across the totality of the evidence of both complainants including their accounts to others the particulars in Charges 62-68 are all satisfied. Roberto Jaz indecently assaulted both complainants. The elements of that charge are satisfied in each case. He committed the assaults without the consent of the complainants in

circumstances which are objectively indecent and knew full well the circumstances that would lead to that objective conclusion.


[764] He kissed [complainant 4] (Charge 62). He kissed [complainant 5] (Charge 63). He smacked the bottom of [complainant 5] (Charge 64). He ground himself against [complainant 5] (Charge 65). He bit [complainant 4] (Charge 67) and he touched [complainant 4]’s vagina (Charge 68). He assaulted [complainant 4] as a female by pulling her hair (Charge 66).

[765] All charges concerning both complainants were established beyond reasonable doubt and convictions entered.

Charge 76 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 33] (on or about 22 September 2018)


[766] [Complainant 33]’s EVI was played, a transcript provided and supplementary oral evidence given.

[767] She went to MH with friends and was given free drinks. Her friends were regulars at MH and she knew that free drinks were common. The drinks came from Danny Jaz and other people at the bar. She has a recollection of being locked in a bathroom with Danny Jaz, pushed up against a mirror and with his hands up her slip. He put his fingers into her vagina. She recalls a knocking at the door and hearing a voice which she thought was a bouncer telling them they needed to get out. Danny Jaz put his hand over her mouth.

[768] Danny Jaz pleaded guilty to Charge 77, sexual violation of [complainant 33].

[769] In the toilet she recalls being kissed by Danny Jaz and trying to push him off. She felt weak and her body was not doing what she wanted it to do. She is a well- trained athlete playing high level netball and was amazed that her muscles would not achieve what she wanted.

[770] She had a number of drinks that night including shots that were given by Danny Jaz.

[771] The next day she could not remember anything and struggled to find out what had happened and why she was like she was. She said she had never been like this on alcohol alone. In cross-examination she referred to the number of drinks she had had that evening and accepted a low tolerance to alcohol due to her high level of fitness and sporting activity. She accepted that at one point she was stumbling on the dance floor.

[772] However she does not accept at all that the blanks in her memory were due to alcohol only. She said it is her practice not to put her drink down when she is dancing for the very reason that it may be spiked. She admitted she could not say for certain that she was drugged and did not have a blood test at the hospital and remains unsure about what happened to her but is adamant that her symptoms are not what happens when she has been drinking alcohol. She admitted to seeing media articles about drugging at MH but denied that was where she got the idea of drugging from. She said she had thought about that as a possibility before seeing the articles.

[773] There is a distinct pattern involving Danny Jaz. Females are drugged and he ends up in the toilet area at the point that they are ready to go into the cubicle. The only available inference is that he disabled [complainant 33] using an unknown substance in one of the drinks that he provided. His admission of sexual violation would justify Charge 76 being at the higher level of stupefying under s 191. If that were the case, I would have convicted of stupefying.

[774] [Complainant 33]’s father and the friends that she was out with gave evidence. She told her father she was embarrassed about what occurred and thought she may have been raped. It was he that went to the police to obtain information about making a complaint.

[775] [Witness ZA] said it was Danny Jaz who gave the free drinks and that [complainant 33] was in a state well beyond what she had observed as a result of alcohol alone.

[776] When [complainant 33] returned to the hotel where her friends were, her makeup was all over her face, she was crying and vomiting. She felt she had been

raped. She was talking about “telling him to stop”. She recounted those matters again the next day.


[777] [Witness ZA] was cross-examined along the lines of [complainant 33], that she and her friends drank far too much that night as they were intending to have a big night. She agreed they were all intoxicated by said that [complainant 33] was acting completely differently than she would when intoxicated on alcohol.

[778] Other witnesses, [witness ZB] and [witness ZC], part of the friend group, gave consistent evidence. Charge 76 was established on the direct evidence implicating Danny Jaz in this offence and his proven propensity to target staff and patrons for disabling, stupefaction and sexual offending.

[779] There was no evidence to implicate Robert Jaz who was acquitted.

Charge 78 (Danny Jaz and Roberto Jaz)

Disabling [complainant 34] (on or about 22 September 2018)


[780] [Complainant 34] and her friend [witness ZD] were drinking before they went to town between 10 and 11 pm. She thought at that stage she may have been 4/10 intoxicated. They met others at MH before midnight where she got two free shots at the bar. She recalls there being a large number of shots lined up on the bar at that time.

[781] The last thing she remembers is two males in their group being removed from the bar by the bouncers for no apparent reason at all. She woke up the next day in her clothes, confused and anxious. She had vomited and had memory blanks. She did not know how she got home. She had never been like this on alcohol alone. She had not taken recreational drugs that night.

[782] In cross-examination she confirmed that her understanding now is that she was taken home after she had come out of the toilet having wet herself. She admitted saying to a constable on 25 September 2018 that “nothing happened to me” explaining that meant nothing physical had happened to her.

[783] [Witness ZD] gave evidence. She is a regular at MH because she knows she can jump the queue and get free drinks. She knows Danny Jaz. She produced a video81 from her phone taken at MH. It shows a row of shots on the bar with Danny Jaz behind the bar. [Complainant 34] messaged her the next day saying she had no memory.

[784] The FWS of [witness ZE] was read. He was one of the males removed from the bar for no apparent reason.

[785] [Witness ZF] gave evidence. He was with the group at [witness ZD]’s home before they went into town. [Complainant 34] was not drunk at that stage. He did not go to MH directly but ended up there around 1.30 am. He noted [complainant 34] was completely different. She was stumbling, her speech was impaired, her eyes were dilated and glazed. He has known her for 4-5 years and never seen her like that before on alcohol.

[786] She matter-of-factly told him that she had wet her pants and seemed hardly aware of her surroundings. He decided to get her home and went with her in an uber. She was getting worse.

[787] One of the particular things he remembered was that her eyes were so open and dilated that it was hard to miss them. She was on her feet but as soon as she got into the uber she got sleepy and then vomited.

[788] I am in no doubt that [complainant 34] was stupefied. Her own evidence and the evidence of her supporting witnesses make clear that the symptoms she exhibited were not only out of character and inconsistent with drinking alcohol only but consistent with symptoms described by other people that had been stupefied and as described by Professor Drummer.

[789] Danny Jaz was present behind the bar when the free drinks were lined up and from which [complainant 34] partook.

81 Exhibit 46.


[790] Danny Jaz has a propensity to drug patrons at MH. There is no suggestion of sexual offending in this case but that does not lessen the impact of that propensity evidence.

[791] I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the unknown substance administered to [complainant 34] was at the hand of Danny Jaz. There is no other viable inference. Danny Jaz was convicted but there is no evidence to implicate Roberto Jaz who was acquitted.

Result


[792] For the above reasons I reached the verdicts set out in Appendix B and entered convictions on all charges that the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Judge PG Mabey KC

District Court Judge | Kaiwhakawā o te Kōti ā-Rohe

Date of authentication | Rā motuhēhēnga: 24/07/2023


Appendix A


CHARGE LIST


The King v ROBERTO JAZ, DANNY JAZ & [SAM JONES]

Christchurch District Court CRI-2018-009-010207

Summary of charges:



Roberto Jaz

Stupefying
x
7
Sexual Violation by Unlawful Sexual Connection
x
4
Making an Intimate Visual Recording
x
5
Sexual Violation by Rape
x
2
Disabling
x
24
Offering to Supply a Class B Controlled Drug
x
3
Attempted Stupefying
x
1
Indecent Assault
x
6
Possession of Objectionable Images
x
1
Male Assaults Female
x
1
Danny Jaz

Stupefying
x
5
Sexual Violation by Unlawful Sexual Connection
x
8
Making an Intimate Visual Recording
x
1
Sexual Violation by Rape
x
2
Disabling
x
24
Offering to Supply a Class B Controlled Drug
x
2
Attempted Stupefying
x
1
Indecent Assault
x
17
[Sam Jones]

Stupefying
x
3
Sexual Violation by Unlawful Sexual Connection
x
3
Making an Intimate Visual Recording
x
1

Sexual Violation by Rape
x
2
Disabling
x
1
Offering to Supply a Class B Controlled Drug
x
1
Indecent Assault
x
1
Witnesses


AS PER THE ATTACHED LIST


Charges:
Charge 2


Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 1 May 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 35]. Particulars : By grabbing her by the shoulders and shaking her to make her breasts move.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 3


Offering to Supply a Class B
Controlled Drug
That DANNY JAZ between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, did offer to supply a Class B Controlled Drug, namely MDMA, to [complainant 9].
REPRESENTATIVE CHARGE
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b)

Charge 4


Offering to Supply a Class B
Controlled Drug
That DANNY JAZ between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, did offer to supply a Class B Controlled Drug, namely MDMA, to [complainant 8].
REPRESENTATIVE CHARGE
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b) Crimes Act 1961
Section 66
Charge 5


Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 8]. Particulars : By kissing her
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 6


Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 8] Particulars : By pushing her against a wall and trying to lift
her dress up
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135

Charge 7
Attempted Stupefying
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ between 1 November 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, attempted to stupefy [complainant 8].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a), 72 & 66
Charge 8
Stupefying Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a) & 66
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ between 1 November 2015 and 30 November 2015, at Christchurch with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 9].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Charge 9
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on or about 29 July 2017, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 18].
Particulars : By touching her breasts
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 10
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 1 January 2016 and 28 July 2017, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 28].
Particulars : By grabbing her breasts
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 11
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 1 January 2016 and 28 July 2017, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 28].
Particulars : By grabbing her buttocks
REPRESENTATIVE CHARGE
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 13
Stupefying
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES]
and on or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence,
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a) & 66


stupefied [complainant 1].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink or in powder form.
Charge 14
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 1] by the connection between her mouth and Roberto Jaz’s penis.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B & 66
Charge 15
Making an Intimate Visual
Recording
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, did intentionally make an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1].
REPRESENTATIVE CHARGE
Crimes Act 1961
Section 216H & 66
Charge 16
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 1] by unlawful sexual connection occasioned by the introduction of the finger of Roberto Jaz into her genitalia.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B & 66
Charge 17
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 1] by the connection between her mouth and the penis of [Sam Jones]
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B & 66
Charge 18
Sexual Violation by Rape
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 1] by Rape.
Particulars: By the penetration of [complainant 1]’s vagina by the penis of Roberto Jaz
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(a) & 66
Charge 19
Sexual Violation by Rape
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
Crimes Act 1961

Section 128(1)(a) & 66
or about 2 April 2017, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 1] by Rape.
Particulars : By the penetration of [complainant 1]s’ vagina by the penis of [Sam Jones]
Charge 20
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 25 June 2017, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 22].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197(1) & 66
Charge 21
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 29 July 2017, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 18].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197(1) & 66
Charge 22
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 29 July 2017, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 28].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197(1) & 66
Charge 23
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on or about 29 July 2017, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 28].
Particulars : By placing his hand on her pubic mound
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 24
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ between 31 July 2017 and 31 May 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 2].
Particulars : By grabbing and spanking her
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 25
Indecent Assault

Crimes Act 1961
That DANNY JAZ between 31 July 2017 and 31 May 2018, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 24].
Particulars : By slapping her on the bottom
Section 135
Charge 26
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 18 August 2017, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 20].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 27
Making an Intimate Visual
Recording
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 24 September 2017, at Christchurch, did intentionally make an intimate visual recording of a person unknown.
Particulars : A female depicted in video #237 on device HTCG181118_2
Crimes Act 1961
Section 216H
Charge 28
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on 6 October 2017, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 36].
Particulars : By touching her breasts
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 29
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on 6 October 2017, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 36].
Particulars : By kissing her
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 30
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on 6 October 2017, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 36].
Particulars : By biting her
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 31
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on 6 October 2017, at Christchurch, at
Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 36].
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135


Particulars : By pushing her face down towards his penis
Charge 32
Stupefying
That DANNY JAZ on or about 14 October 2017, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied SB.
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a)
Charge 33
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ on or about 14 October 2017, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, sexually violated SB by the introduction of his finger into her genitalia.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B
Charge 34
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ on or about 14 October 2017, at Christchurch, at Christchurch, sexually violated SB by the connection between his penis and her mouth.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B
Charge 35
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 4 November 2017, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 23].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in his drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 36
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on or about 23 December 2017, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 29].
Particulars : By running his hands over her body.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 37
Stupefying
That ROBERTO JAZ between 1 January 2018 and 30 April 2018, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 2].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered
in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a)

Charge 38
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That ROBERTO JAZ between 1 January 2018 and 30 April 2018, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 2] by the introduction of his finger into her genitalia
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b)

Charge 39
Possession of Objectionable
Publication
That ROBERTO JAZ on 29 January 2018, at Christchurch, without lawful authority or excuse had in his possession an objectionable publication namely video #610 on device HTCG181118_2 knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publication was objectionable.
Films Videos & Publications
Classification Act 1993
Section 131A(1)
Charge 40
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ on or about 24 March 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 16].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197(1) & 66
Charge 42
Stupefying
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES]
between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2018, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 2].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a) & 66
Charge 43
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 24].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197(1) & 66
Charge 44
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on or about 12 May 2018, at Christchurch,
Crimes Act 1961

Section 135
indecently assaulted [complainant 16]
Particulars : By putting his hand on her buttocks.
Charge 45
Making an Intimate Visual
Recording
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 26 May 2018, at Christchurch, did intentionally make an intimate visual recording of a person unknown.
Particulars : A female depicted in video #473 on device HTCG181118_2
Crimes Act 1961
Section 216H
Charge 46
Making an Intimate Visual
Recording
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 26 May 2018, at Christchurch, did intentionally make an intimate visual recording of a person unknown.
Particulars : A female depicted in video #474 on device HTCG181118_2
Crimes Act 1961
Section 216H
Charge 47
Making an Intimate Visual
Recording
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 26 May 2018, at Christchurch, did intentionally make an intimate visual recording of a person unknown.
Particulars : A female depicted in video #475 on device HTCG181118_2
Crimes Act 1961
Section 216H
Charge 48
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 June 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 31].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 49
Indecent Assault
That DANNY JAZ on or about 15 June 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 31].
Particulars : By kissing her
Crimes Act 1961
Charge 50
Disabling

Crimes Act 1961
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 22 June 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 26].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Section 197 & 66
Charge 51
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ on or about 22 June 2018, at Christchurch sexually violated [complainant 26] by the connection between his penis and her mouth.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b) & 128B
Charge 52
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 22 June 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 10]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 53
Offering to Supply a Class B
Controlled Drug
That [SAM JONES] on or about 23 June 2018, at Christchurch, did offer to supply a Class B Controlled Drug, namely MDMA, to [complainant 30].
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b)
Charge 54
Stupefying
That DANNY JAZ, ROBERTO JAZ and [SAM JONES] on
or about 23 June 2018, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 30].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink or in powder form.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a) & 66
Charge 56
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 13 July 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 32]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered
in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66

Charge 57
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ on or about 13 July 2018, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 32] occasioned by the connection between his penis and her mouth.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b)
Charge 58
Stupefying
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 4].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink or in powder form
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a)
Charge 59
Stupefying
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, with intent to facilitate the commission of an imprisonable offence, stupefied [complainant 5]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink or in powder form.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 191(1)(a)
Charge 60
Offering to Supply a Class B
Controlled Drug
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, offered to supply a class B controlled drug namely MDMA to [complainant 4].
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b)
Charge 61
Offering to Supply a Class B
Controlled Drug
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, offered to supply a class B controlled drug namely MDMA to [complainant 5].
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
Section 6(1)(c) and (2)(b)
Charge 62
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 4].
Particulars : By kissing her.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 63
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at
Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 5].
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135


Particulars : kissing her.
Charge 64
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 5].
Particulars : By hitting her bottom.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 65
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 5].
Particulars : By grinding against her.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135

Charge 66
Male Assaults Female
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, being a Male assaulted a Female, namely [complainant 4].
Particulars : By pulling her hair.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 196
Charge 67
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 4].
Particulars : By biting her.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 68
Indecent Assault
That ROBERTO JAZ on or about 15 July 2018, at Christchurch, indecently assaulted [complainant 4].
Particulars : By touching her vagina.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 135
Charge 69
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 5 August 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 6].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 70
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 11
August 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66


justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 7].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Charge 72
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 25 August 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 23].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in his drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 73
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 1 September 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 11].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 74
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 1 September 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 17]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 75
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 8 September 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 26].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 76
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 22 September 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 33].
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66


in her drink.
Charge 77
Sexual Violation by Unlawful
Sexual Connection
That DANNY JAZ on or about 22 September 2018, at Christchurch, sexually violated [complainant 33] by unlawful sexual connection occasioned by the introduction of his finger
into her genitalia.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 128(1)(b), 128B & 66
Charge 78
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 22 September 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 34]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66
Charge 80
Disabling
That DANNY JAZ and ROBERTO JAZ on or about 23 November 2018, at Christchurch, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefied [complainant 37]
Particulars : By way of an unknown substance administered
in her drink.
Crimes Act 1961
Section 197 & 66

Appendix B


Roberto Jaz

Charge No.
Charge / Complainant
Verdict
Charge 7
Attempted to stupefy [complainant 8]
Guilty
Charge 8
Stupefying [complainant 9]
Guilty
Charge 13
Stupefying [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 14
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 15
Making an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 16
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 17
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 18
Rape of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 19
Rape of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 20
Disabling [complainant 22]
Not guilty
Charge 21
Disabling [complainant 18]
Not guilty
Charge 22
Disabling [complainant 28]
Not guilty
Charge 26
Disabling [complainant 20]
Not guilty
Charge 27
Making an intimate visual recording, video #237
Guilty
Charge 35
Disabling [complainant 23]
Not guilty
Charge 37
Stupefying [complainant 2]
Guilty
Charge 38
Sexual violation of [complainant 2]
Guilty
Charge 39
Possession of an objectionable publication
Guilty
Charge 40
Disabling [complainant 16]
Not guilty
Charge 42
Stupefying [complainant 2]
Guilty
Charge 43
Disabling [complainant 24]
Not guilty
Charge 45
Making an intimate visual recording, video #473
Guilty
Charge 46
Making an intimate visual recording, video #474
Guilty
Charge 47
Making an intimate visual recording, video #475
Guilty

Charge 48
Disabling [complainant 31]
Not guilty
Charge 50
Disabling [complainant 26]
Not guilty
Charge 52
Disabling [complainant 10]
Not guilty
Charge 54
Stupefying [complainant 30]
Guilty
Charge 56
Disabling [complainant 32]
Not guilty
Charge 58
Stupefying [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 59
Stupefying [complainant 5]
Guilty
Charge 60
Offering to supply a Class B drug to [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 61
Offering to supply a Class B drug to [complainant 5]
Guilty
Charge 62
Indecent assault of [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 63
Indecent assault of [complainant 5]
Guilty
Charge 64
Indecent assault of [complainant 5]
Guilty
Charge 65
Indecent assault of [complainant 5]
Guilty
Charge 66
Assaulting [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 67
Indecent assault of [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 68
Indecent assault of [complainant 4]
Guilty
Charge 69
Disabling [complainant 6]
Not guilty
Charge 70
Disabling [complainant 7]
Not guilty
Charge 72
Disabling [complainant 23]
Not guilty
Charge 73
Disabling [complainant 11]
Not guilty
Charge 74
Disabling [complainant 17]
Not guilty
Charge 75
Disabling [complainant 26]
Not guilty
Charge 76
Disabling [complainant 33]
Not guilty
Charge 78
Disabling [complainant 34]
Not guilty
Charge 80
Disabling [complainant 37]
Not guilty

Danny Jaz

Charge No.
Charge / Complainant
Verdict
Charge 3
Offering to supply a Class B drug to [complainant 9]
Guilty
Charge 4
Offering to supply a Class B drug to [complainant 8]
Guilty
Charge 7
Attempted to stupefying [complainant 8]
Guilty
Charge 8
Stupefying [complainant 9]
Guilty
Charge 13
Stupefying [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 14
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 15
Making an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 16
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 17
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 18
Rape of [complainant 1]
Guilty
Charge 19
Rape of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 20
Disabling [complainant 22]
Not guilty
Charge 21
Disabling [complainant 18]
Guilty
Charge 22
Disabling [complainant 28]
Guilty
Charge 26
Disabling [complainant 20]
Guilty
Charge 32
Stupefying SB
Guilty
Charge 35
Disabling [complainant 23]
Not guilty
Charge 40
Disabling [complainant 16]
Guilty
Charge 42
Stupefying [complainant 2]
Guilty
Charge 43
Disabling [complainant 24]
Not guilty
Charge 48
Disabling [complainant 31]
Guilty
Charge 50
Disabling [complainant 26]
Guilty
Charge 52
Disabling [complainant 10]
Guilty
Charge 54
Stupefying [complainant 30]
Not guilty

Charge 56
Disabling [complainant 20]
Guilty
Charge 69
Disabling [complainant 6]
Not guilty
Charge 70
Disabling [complainant 7]
Not guilty
Charge 72
Disabling [complainant 23]
Not guilty
Charge 73
Disabling [complainant 11]
Not guilty
Charge 74
Disabling [complainant 17]
Not guilty
Charge 75
Disabling [complainant 26]
Not guilty
Charge 76
Disabling [complainant 33]
Guilty
Charge 78
Disabling [complainant 34]
Guilty
Charge 80
Disabling [complainant 37]
Not guilty

[Sam Jones]

Charge No.
Charge / Complainant
Verdict
Charge 13
Stupefying [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 14
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 15
Making an intimate visual recording of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 16
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 17
Sexual violation of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 18
Rape of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 19
Rape of [complainant 1]
Not guilty
Charge 42
Stupefying [complainant 2]
Not guilty
Charge 53
Offering to supply Class B drug to [complainant 30]
Guilty
Charge 54
Stupefying [complainant 30]
Not guilty

Danny Jaz Guilty Pleas

Charge No.
Charge / Complainant
Charge 2
Indecent assault of [complainant 35]
Charge 5
Indecent assault of [complainant 8]
Charge 6
Indecent assault of [complainant 8]
Charge 9
Indecent assault of [complainant 18]
Charge 10
Indecent assault of [complainant 28]
Charge 11
Indecent assault of [complainant 28]
Charge 23
Indecent assault of [complainant 28]
Charge 24
Indecent assault of [complainant 2]
Charge 25
Indecent assault of [complainant 24]
Charge 28
Indecent assault of [complainant 36]
Charge 29
Indecent assault of [complainant 36]
Charge 30
Indecent assault of [complainant 36]
Charge 31
Indecent assault of [complainant 36]
Charge 33
Sexual violation of SB
Charge 34
Sexual violation of SB
Charge 36
Indecent assault of [complainant 29]
Charge 44
Indecent assault of [complainant 16]
Charge 49
Indecent assault of [complainant 31]
Charge 51
Sexual violation of [complainant 26]
Charge 57
Sexual violation of [complainant 32]
Charge 77
Sexual violation [complainant 15]

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZDC/2023/14646.html