In a publicly released Family Court decision, Judge Catriona Doyle said it was unclear why the police took no steps to prosecute him in this instance.
Nichols was 12 when she met Conway at a sports event. He was then about 15 and described as a high achiever, having competed throughout New Zealand.
When Nichols’ parents found the relationship had become sexual they were “extremely upset” and told Conway that what he was doing was illegal, because of their daughter’s age.
They later claimed that she had been manipulated, groomed and psychologically abused by Conway, who had isolated her from family, verbally abused her and diminished her self-esteem, including that he allegedly called her disparaging names.
He denied grooming her, but acknowledged they had entered into a relationship after they had been friends for some time.
“At its most basic, this is a case about a young woman who was sexually and emotionally abused from the age of 14 years old until her parents took legal steps to remove her from her abuser,” Judge Doyle said in the decision.
The parents’ efforts to limit their daughter’s contact with Conway caused a deterioration in their relationship with her.
She began running away from home and not turning up to school to spend time with him.
On one occasion, Conway picked the teen up from school and took her to a motel.
Two weeks later, the same thing happened when the pair went away for several days before they “hid” at Conway’s mother’s home, who insisted that her son take Nichols back home.
She ran away again and contacted Conway via a computer at the public library.
He picked her up and they spent the evening together before calling Nichols’ mother to talk about how they could continue their relationship.
Conway, who was about to turn 18, was worried about being prosecuted if he continued to have a sexual relationship with Nichols, who was then only 15.
The police were aware of what was happening, and, after several more instances of Nichols running away to meet Conway, he was served with a five-day police safety order.
The contact continued after Nichols’ parents were advised to take her out of town for a while, but she later disclosed to the police that the sexual relationship began when she was 14.
Judge Doyle said it was unclear why, at that point, the police took no steps to prosecute Conway.
The pair then ran away together and, despite the parents’ pleas to the police to intervene, the police said they did not have legal authority to enter private property to retrieve their daughter without a protection order.
The parents obtained a temporary protection order, but the police said they were unable to use it to uplift their daughter, as the nature of the order meant she was able to consent to having contact with Conway.
The parents then sought a special condition that prevented their daughter from being able to consent to contact.
The police got her and returned her home.
Conway then breached the order several times by contacting Nichols via social media and attempting to call her.
“None of these breaches were the subject of prosecution by police,” Judge Doyle said.
After a protection order was finalised, Conway then sought a special condition that he should be able to attend events, where Nichols and her family might also be present.
Judge Doyle said while he had asked to take part in an activity which was important to him, Nichols remained a “very vulnerable young woman” and her need for protection was the court’s primary concern.
The judge issued a final protection order aimed at preventing any further intended or unintended contact, with a time limit on a special condition which would expire when Nichols turned 18.
*Names have been changed in accordance with Family Court rules.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
