��һ�ǿ�����

A Christchurch soldier is on trial after being accused by two women of covertly filming and photographing them during sexual encounters.

Corporal Manu Anthony Smith allegedly then sent the women footage of themselves during sex via social media.

Until they received the footage, they say they did not know they had been filmed.

Smith, 41, has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

He admits taking the videos and images - but says the women consented, or he genuinely believed they were consenting at the time.

The women reject this, saying they had no idea they were being recorded.

Court martial proceedings began today for Smith at Burnham Military Camp before Judge Tom Gilbert.

A court martial is a military court that tries members of the armed forces for violations of military law.

It is a structured legal process, similar to a civilian court, and a decision on guilt or innocence is made by a panel of military members - three in Smith’s case.

If a defendant is found guilty, punishments can include fines, demotions, or imprisonment.

Until today, the Herald could not publish details of the allegations against Smith.

Between August and November 2020, he is accused of “intentionally or recklessly” making an intimate visual recording of a woman.

He is further charged with deliberately making intimate recordings of a second woman in November 2020 and December 2020.

The alleged civil offences contravene the Armed Forces Disciplinary Act 1971.

Judge Tom Gilbert. Photo / Pool

The names of women have been suppressed. Both were in new relationships with Smith at the time of the alleged offending.

Judge Gilbert also suppressed the specific details of the content of the videos and images.

He said the Herald could only describe the content of the material and “what was engaged in between parties” as “intimate sexual activity”.

Anything outside that description was prohibited.

During the trial, the court will hear from both complainants via audio-visual link, and the panel deciding Smith’s fate will be shown the intimate recordings in question.

A number of other witnesses will also be called.

Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O’Byrne outlined the Crown case against Smith this morning.

Corporal Manu Smith at the Court-martial proceedings. Photo / Pool

She said the first woman met Smith in July 2020, and a sexual relationship “progressed quickly”.

During sexual activity at her Christchurch home she “felt something was off” and when she looked up Smith was “pointing his cellphone at her”.

She told him to stop recording and delete the footage.

“She told him off for recording her and he played it off as a joke,” said O’Byrne.

The woman assumed the footage was deleted - but Smith later sent it to her via Snapchat.

Snapchat is social messaging app where messages are designed to disappear after being viewed or after a set time

“She told him off again, saying she told him not to do that and it wasn’t ok,” said O’Byrne.

The woman stopped seeing Smith and reported the matter to the police.

The second woman was at Smith’s defence house in Burnham when she was recorded.

O’Byrne said that during sexual activity,, Smith took three photos of the woman.

“Without her consent - or even time to discuss what was happening. At the time, she did not realise [photographs were being taken],” said the prosecutor.

Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O'Byrne. Photo / Pool

Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots.

She told him to delete the photos, and he “played it off as a joke”.

Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots.

The pair engaged in sexual activity a few days later.

“She could not see what he was doing,” said O’Byrne.

“She did not realise she was being filmed.”

Later on, she received a message from Smith on Snapchat.

Given his messaging history, she decided to turn on screen recording before she opened it.

It was the footage of her taken during sex.

“She asked if he had sent it to anyone else. He played it off as a joke,” said O’Byrne.

The second woman reported the incident to police, handing over the screen recordings.

Defence lawyer Matthew Hague. Photo / Pool

The court heard that during their relationships with Smith, they had willingly and knowingly sent him explicit images and video, including naked photos. These were sent via Snapchat.

Both vehemently reject Smith’s explanation that they consented to him filming and or photographing them.

The first woman began giving evidence before lunch.

“In the video, you can see me trying to swipe his phone away, telling him to put it away,” she said.

She said there had been no discussion before sex about whether Smith could record. When she told him off, he was “very blase”.

“He just said ‘no, it’s all good’,” she recalled.

She said she felt “pretty gross”.

“My privacy had been invaded,” she said.

The first complainant said she later reached out to a woman who had liked Smith’s social media posts.

She learned the woman was in a relationship with Smith.

She said she did not initially tell the woman about the filming incident - but the pair did discuss it at the end of 2021 or start of 2022.

She described it as “trauma dumping”.

“Just trying to figure out where and when… all the lies that we’d been told,” she said.

In a brief opening address, Smith’s lawyer, Matthew Hague, told the panel that his client denied all the charges.

“Let me be clear… what you’ve heard… is just allegations,“ he said.

“It is not evidence. At present… the accused must be presumed innocent."

Cross-examining the first complainant, Hague suggested that the “making and the sharing of intimate recordings” was a “normal” part of her relationship with Smith.

He said Smith was not “trying to hide” his filming of her and put to her that she did not tell him to stop.

“I did tell him to stop,” she said.

Hague suggested the recording was consensual and the complaint was made up as a way to “get Manu in trouble”.

He suggested the first complainant had colluded with other women who did not like Smith to ruin his life. The women communicated through a Facebook group chat.

The complainant said she initially did not realise filming without consent was an offence.

“I wanted him to hurt as much as he had hurt me,” she said of her decision to go to the police.

When questioned further by Hague about the group messages, the woman admitted she wanted Smith “publicly shamed” and that she considered going to “the media” and “wanted money” out of Smith.

“I wanted him to feel the way he made me feel which was useless and worthless”, she said.

“It’s caused a lot of grief for me so yes I feel like I would be entitled to (money or compensation).”

She denied the allegations were fabricated for any kind of revenge for Smith cheating on her. And while she wanted him to face the appropriate consequences for his alleged actions, she did not necessarily want him “kicked out” of the army.

The woman explained that the group chat was “a safe space” where she and others “vented” about Smith. She had referred to him “messing with the wrong woman” but worried that her comments would be taken “out of context”.

“We’re not making it up at all… I cannot think of anything that would have given him the idea that I was allowing (the filming)," she said.

At the end of the woman’s evidence, Judge Gilbert pointed out to the panel that there was no suggestion or evidence that Smith had sent any other person the images or video of the two complainants.

“This is not a case where that is alleged,” he clarified.

The court martial is set to continue for at least three days.