The girl, who was 6 at the time of her evidential video interview, told the interviewer the boy would promise to give her lollies if she would let him “put his penis in her ’gina”.
She described it happening on repeated occasions when he would come to visit her brother at their Bay of Plenty home.
‘Sometimes I’d trick him,’ says girl
The girl said she and the boy would hide behind bushes or under the trampoline and he would sexually violate her as they stood in a hug embrace, while in a kneeling or “squat” position, or when they were seated on her bed and she was facing him.
When asked to describe what amounted to mechanics, she said it was “too tricky” but later demonstrated using soft toys provided to her.
She told the interviewer that “sometimes I’d trick him ’cause I really don’t wanna do it” and would tell the boy she was “busting” and needed to go to the toilet.
He would be “waiting there and then he’ll come back and look for me but then I’d be like hiding somewhere”.
The girl also described them kissing like when you’re “married” and the boy touching “her privates” over her clothing.
She said the boy had told her to keep it a secret but she “didn’t actually want to”.
The boy’s lawyer Steve Franklin suggested the girl had made up the stories.
He put to her, under cross-examination, a description of their height difference and the difference in the length of their legs when standing.
She then said the boy “was on his knees” and she stood when the violations behind the bushes happened.
Franklin responded: “That’s not what you told [the interviewer]”, at which point the girl began to cry.
After a brief break, the cross-examination continued, and the girl denied having made up stories about each sexual encounter.
The girl said the reason she couldn’t explain more detail about the specific mechanics of the alleged sexual offences, at the time of her evidential interview was that she “didn’t really understand back then”.
Franklin asked her if someone else had touched her, but she said no.
Mum says she ‘caught’ teenager in girl’s room
The cross-examination also included questions about the proximity of the girl’s bedroom to the communal areas of the home, as well as the visibility of the trampoline.
Under re-examination, the girl said the sexual violations only happened when the trampoline was away from the house, by some trees.
The girl’s mother gave evidence and said she had “caught” the boy in her daughter’s room about “four to six times” and at least once she had told her daughter off for drawing on the boy’s face.
She said the blinds were down and the door was closed before she walked in.
“I look back now and think I was stupid,” she said, but at the time she thought it was “perfectly innocent”.
During her evidence, the mother said her daughter had started to become increasingly interested in human anatomy books and had also complained of discomfort around her genital area.
The mother described other changes in her behaviour, including anxiety, which at the time she had put down to her starting school.
She had also begun to exhibit some sexualised behaviour around men and, on one occasion, around her brother.
At this point, the mother had enough concerns to talk to her daughter and in the course of the conversation explained to her about her “private parts” and that others shouldn’t touch them, nor should she touch others.
At this, she said her daughter’s facial expression changed.
The mother then asked her daughter if somebody had touched her. She said the girl replied yes and named the teenager.
The mother said at first she “couldn’t compute” the disclosure and checked the girl was, in fact, referring to her son’s friend.
She had asked more questions and the girl had used sexual gestures that the mother thought a child wouldn’t otherwise know.
The mother had also tried to understand when the alleged incidents might have occurred based on things such as the timing of Christmas and birthdays.
‘Extraordinarily risky’ locations, defence lawyer suggests
Under cross-examination, the mother was asked about the family’s daily rhythms, activities and the house layout.
It was put to her the girl’s bedroom would have been a “risky place” for the boy to do what he’s accused of because anyone could have walked in.
“You would think so, wouldn’t you?” she replied.
It was also put to her that given she moved around her property a lot, tending to animals, gardens and outdoor chores, she could have walked past the trampoline at any point.
Again, Franklin suggested to her it was an “extraordinarily risky” location, to which she replied, “obviously not”.
Under re-examination, the mother confirmed there were times when her daughter would be in the house or around the property unsupervised, while she was in her vegetable garden or doing chores.
Franklin also questioned her about her daughter’s interest in the anatomy books, one of which he described as a guide for children about how babies were made, which included descriptions of sex.
He then asked her if her daughter was bright and curious and liked to learn, which the mother confirmed was the case.
The trial before Judge Geoghegan continues.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.