Reasons — stupefying — rape — sexual violation — disabling — male assaults female — indecent assault — making an intimate visual recording — possessing objectionable publication — "stupefy" — parties to offences — "objectionable" — Crimes Act 1961, ss 66, 128, 128A, 135, 191, 197, 216G & 216H — Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, ss 3, 131 & 131A — Evidence Act 2006, ss 9 & 35 — R v Sturm [2005] 3 NZLR 252, (2005) 21 CRNZ 627 — R v Sturm [2007] NZCA 175 — X v R [2021] NZCA 331 — Ahsin v R [2014] NZSC 153. Three defendants were on trial for 80 charges related to the alleged drugging and sexual violation of multiple complainants. The alleged offending occurred over a period of almost four years, at a bar in Christchurch that was owned by the family of the first two defendants. The Court began by explaining the charges of stupefying, attempted stupefying, disabling, sexual violation, indecent assault, possession of an objectionable publication, and making an intimate visual recording. The Court set out what the Crown needed to show for each charge to be proven, and also analysed the requirements of party offending. Evidence, including expert witness testimony, established that the defendants had knowledge of and access to various drugs commonly used to stupefy. Further, electronic messages between the defendants established their propensity to target staff at the bar and restaurant for sexual offending. The Court described the defendants' behaviour as "arrogant, entitled and hubristic." The Court then addressed each charge against the defendants. Some of the charges were proven, for reasons including circumstantial evidence, propensity evidence and the testimony of complainants and other witnesses. Other charges were not proven, for reasons including lack of sufficient evidence of a common unlawful purpose. The defendants were acquitted on these charges. In total, the first defendant was convicted on 27 charges. The second defendant was convicted on 20 charges and also pleaded guilty to 21. The third defendant was acquitted on all charges, apart from one minor one. On the evidence against him, it was possible that he had a reasonable belief of consent. Judgment Date: 26 July 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *