Bushman acquitted of raping wife

Press, 24 February 1979, Page 6

Bushman acquitted of raping wife

PA Rotorua 1 A Tokcrca bushman,' Raymond Thomas Bartlett, i aged 37. was yesterday! found guilty of assault on! his estranged wife, kidnap-’ ping, and unlawfully taking a car, but was acquitted on charges of abduction and!

rape. He was on trial in the Supreme Court at Rotorua, before Mr Justice Sinclair and a jury. Bartlett was convicted on the three charges and remanded in custody by his Honour for reports and sentence. His Honour said sentence could be in Auckland on a date to be fixed.

Bartlett had pleaded not! guilty to charges of assaulting his wife, Patricia Anne Bartlett; abducting her or alternatively, kidnapping her; rape; and unlawfully taking a car. In his address, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr L. H. Moore) said of the assault count that there was evidence of a threat with a knife and also the fact that the complainant had been held in the car.

Dealing with the second charge, that of taking the car, Mr Moore said the car was Mrs Bartlett’s property, she had bought and paid for it. and there was no evidence that the accused had a right to use it. On the abduction charge. Mr Moore said the jury had to be satisfied that it had been the intention of the accused at the time he carried her away to have intercourse with her. Twice in the past he had forced her

I to have intercourse with him i by virtually trapping her. Mr Moore said the kidnap-; I ping in the alternative count! I was more simple. It was one! lof taking her away without [her consent, to keep her [confined. He submitted that [the act of the accused of! [going to the house with a .knife showed that he in-j tended to take her away! against her will. On the count of rape, Mr Moore submitted that it must have been clear to the accused that his wife was terrified, as she had every right to be, from her previous experience of his propensity for violence. In his address for the I defence, Mr G. R. Joyce suggested that under the law concerning family property the car was a family chattel and as such Bartlett had a right to use it and could not be convicted if he believed that to be so.

He asked the jury to pause and consider the abduction charges carefully, as the question of the intent of the accused was the vital issue.

He said the complainant’s evidence was that she believed her husband intended Ito kill her, while the accused had said in his interview with the police that all he had wanted to do was talk to her. There was no evidence before the jury that ! Bartlett intended to " have I intercourse with her.

I On the rape charge, Mr Ijovce said it was the law in New Zealand that a man could not be charged with the rape of his wife, unless there was a separation order

iin full force and effect. The [period of reconciliation had ibeen before Christmas but [the evidence of a defence [witness was that it was in [February, 1978. “can you be [satisfied that the order was in force?” Mr Joyce said. I In his summing-up, his (Honour said the jury may j think there was no challenge it•• the wife’s evidence on the assault count and on the charge of unlawfully taking the car he directed that as far as the charge was concerned, the car was the propertv of the wife. His Honour said of the abduction charge that he was unhappy about it and for his part he would find the accused not guilty. He suggested that the jury concentrate on the kidnapping count, and said it was possible for the jury to infer, from the fact that the accused locked the car door and drove at speed to prevent her getting out, that the accused intended to confine her.

Dealing with the rape charge, his Honour said the jury’ had to be satisfied that a separation order had been in effect. The law allowed one period of attempted reconciliation of three months when the parties could come together and set up home, without its jeopardising the (separation order.

In this case the jury had to decide whether the reconciliation period had begun, as | Mrs Bartlett said, in December, or when the defence witness said it did, in February, and whether there had, in fact, been two periods.