Three men found guilty of multiple charges over gang rape in Airbnb during Newcastle bucks party
WARNING: This story contains content that readers may find distressing.
Three men have been found guilty of multiple charges over a gang rape during a bucks night weekend in an Airbnb.
Andrew David, Maurice Hawell and Marius Hawell allegedly sexually assaulted three teenage women in February 2022.
Three men have been found guilty of multiple charges over the gang rape of three teenage women during a bucks party weekend in Newcastle.
WARNING: This story contains content that readers may find distressing.
Andrew David, 30, Maurice Hawell, 30, and Marius Hawell, 22, pleaded not guilty to multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault in company, aggravated sexual touching and attempting to commit aggravated sexual assault in company.
The offences allegedly took place during a weekend in February 2022.
The court heard the men assaulted two 18-year-old friends in an Airbnb on the Friday night after meeting them at the Cambridge Hotel and taking them back there.
A third woman, 19, was raped in the same apartment on the Saturday night, the court heard.
After hearing weeks of evidence in the NSW District Court, the jurors retired to consider their verdict on Thursday afternoon.
Today, they reached unanimous verdicts on nine of the 11 charges.
All three men were found guilty of five counts of aggravated sexual assault, one count of aggravated sexual touching and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault
Andrew David and Maurice Hawell were also found guilty of two additional counts of aggravated sexual assault.
The jurors indicated they had been unable to reach unanimous verdicts on two remaining charges, however Judge Gina O’Rourke urged them to persevere.
She said experience has shown that with more time to discuss the issues, juries were able to agree.
Prosecutor says men knew each other were participating
One of the complainants recalled agreeing to go back to the Airbnb, where nine men were staying, as long as her friend could accompany her.
She said she engaged in consensual sex with a man in one bedroom before a different man walked into the room naked, touched her, and asked to join in.
She said no.
She said she later felt a “swarm of people around me” in a dark bedroom, where she was forced onto the bed.
She alleged she was raped and sexually assaulted by at least three men in multiple ways.
The jury was told she was unable to identify the men because the room was too dark.
The court heard the woman returned to the Cambridge hotel feeling “embarrassed and ashamed” and did not tell her friend about the rape.
The court heard she had consumed multiple alcoholic drinks and two MDMA pills before going to the apartment, but under cross-examination she said while she was starting to slur her words, she felt “in control”.
During the trial, jurors were told the men participated in a “joint criminal enterprise”, in that they had an agreement to sexually assault or sexually touch one of the women knowing that they were not consenting.
Crown Prosecutor Craig Evans said each man participated with knowledge of the lack of consent and knowing that each other was also participating.
‘Not a court of morals’
Barrister Scott Corish, who represented Marius Hawell, referred to his client as a “little fish” in the joint criminal enterprise referred to by the Crown.
He said jurors could never be satisfied Marius Hawell was guilty and said being invited on a bucks weekend by his older brother did not mean he was part of any agreement.
The jury was told Marius Hawell had his clothes on at the alleged times and could challenge every piece of evidence.
David’s counsel, Sharyn Hall SC, said there was evidence her client had “reasonable grounds” for believing that the women were consenting.
She pointed out her client had no criminal history and was of good character.
In her summing up, Judge O’Rourke told the jury that some evidence in the trial could prove a fact directly, while other evidence could prove something indirectly.
She also instructed the panel to consider the evidence on each individual charge.
“This is not a court of morals, it’s a court of law,” the judge said.
The deliberations continue.
