Gabriel Rutherford, right, wrote to his victim that he had “truly suffered" and offered her $5000 to drop the charge against him.
An Auckland sex offender wrote to his victim trying to bribe her into dropping an indecent assault charge against him. His bid to escape justice failed. Katie Harris reports.
Claire* was at home when she first learnt of the letter.
It was addressed to her and typed by Gabriel Rutherford, the man who had sexually abused her, and shared with her in late 2023 via a mutual friend on Facebook.
Rutherford, who also goes by the surname Hartley, started with an admission. One he hadn’t yet provided to the court.
“I want to apologies [sic] for what happened in August, it was horrible and wrong and words don’t truly justify how messed up my actions were and I feel so tremendously guilty and wish I could take it back.”
He then offered her $5000 to drop the case.
The letter left Claire shaking, sickened and “totally disgusted”.
“It was really upsetting that he had admitted guilt in the letter, but continued to say he wasn’t guilty [in court] and kept trying to guilt me for what he did.
“I knew his apology wasn’t genuine, he was just desperate to not be held accountable.”
Claire said the offending occurred in August 2023 when she travelled to Auckland for a friend’s birthday. After going to bed, she said she awoke to Rutherford holding her down and indecently assaulting her.
“I couldn’t wake up and I didn’t have the strength to push him off and tell him to stop it.
“It was scary not being able to do anything.”
After sending the letter, he was arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The Herald understands Rutherford later agreed to a plea deal in mid-2024 in which he admitted the sex offence and the second charge was dropped.
He was sentenced to six months’ home detention and one year of special conditions. Rutherford is now appealing his sentence and conviction.
The Herald has applied to the Auckland District Court for a summary of the attack that Rutherford pleaded guilty to.
Back in the letter, Rutherford wrote that while he didn’t believe there was much he could do to make it up to Claire, he could at least give her options.
He pointed out that he could spend up to seven years in jail.
“If you believe that this is what I deserve then feel free to use this letter as a ‘nail in the coffin’. As you may be aware by writing this I am going against my bail conditions and you can use this as a ‘breach of bail’.”
Alternatively, he wrote that he had taken out a $5000 loan to cover some of his legal fees and would be “MORE than happy” to give it to her.
Rutherford said the payment would be a form of reparation so that she and her family could have some “loving and enjoyable memories”.
“I would also like to say that if it’s purely the number that swayed your decision please know that if needed i could sell / get further loans to find a satisfactory outcome.
“Although if you believe I am due to pay more to make amends [it] may take a little bit to get some funds together however I could probably scrape up to 5k to give to you by the end of the week.”
Rutherford wrote that he was praying she would choose to take the money instead of pursuing the charge.
“My boss has mentioned that should you pursue your charge then I lose my job. (and career).”
It went without saying that he would lose his house within a matter of months, as he would be unable to pay the mortgage, he wrote.
“I would like to let you know that I have truly suffered, with all of this in consideration, I beg that you find it in your heart to forgive me and drop the charges.”
Rutherford said that no matter her decision, she had his word “or may God banish my soul”, that he would never do anything similar again.
“I pray that you can take the money that already rich lawyers dont [sic] need and use it to enhance your lives, over me using it to delay sentencing for as long as possible.”
Although Rutherford wrote she had until March to theoretically decide, as that’s when he was due in court, he presumed she would find the additional funds helpful before Christmas and New Year.
“If you feel that you wish to punish me further by dragging out your response than [sic] I will respect that.
“My Fate is in your hands.”
Claire was frustrated that he outlined how damaging the situation had been for him without “any care for how it affected mine and my family’s lives”.
“I lost both of my jobs, because I was working in people’s homes, and I just couldn’t be in someone’s home where a man was, and then I was working nights as well, and I just didn’t feel safe being out at night.”
She reported the letter to police and Rutherford was arrested for contacting her.
When Rutherford pleaded guilty to the sex offence in August 2024, the latter charge was removed.
Detective Senior Sergeant Kathy Bostock said police acknowledged the sentence handed down in September and said an appeal had now been lodged by the defendant.
“As such we are limited in further comment at this time.”
Rutherford has been approached for comment through his legal counsel.
In the lead-up to sentencing, Claire alleges Rutherford continued his role as a support worker with Emerge Aotearoa.
According to its website, Emerge Aotearoa provides health, housing and social services.
Rutherford only left the organisation after being convicted.
Claire said knowing he had been working in a space with vulnerable people was scary.
“The whole time I was like, he needs to get convicted so that we can let people know because without the conviction, I felt like I couldn’t go to the media.”
Emerge Aotearoa services national director Gemma Bateman confirmed Rutherford was no longer an employee, but couldn’t comment further due to privacy reasons.
“All support workers at Emerge Aotearoa are required to undergo regular police vetting. Employees are also bound by employment obligations, including the requirement to disclose relevant criminal offending and related charges where applicable.
“Where existing employees disclose new criminal charges, we assess any ongoing risk prior to court processes and sentencing.”
Bateman said that when they become aware of concerns regarding employee conduct, Emerge Aotearoa is required to balance service delivery obligations with the legal requirement to allow the natural course of justice to proceed.
“The circumstances may mean the employee is removed from certain work tasks or duties while the court process concludes.
“Following any court processes we evaluate the need for any appropriate internal employment process and any impact this may have on ongoing employment.”
NOTE: Grammatical errors included in the letter have been left in for accuracy.
*Claire’s name has been changed as she has automatic name suppression
Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues including sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.