A leading figure in the New Zealand entertainment industry was found guilty of two charges but cleared of 23 others. Photo / Andrew Warner
A leading figure in the New Zealand entertainment industry was found guilty of two charges but cleared of 23 others. Photo / Andrew Warner
Leading entertainment figure’s name can be revealed soon: Judge
Jury found him guilty of indecent assault, sexual violation - not guilty on 23 charges
Victim left traumatised by ‘disgusting and repulsive’ man
Defence lawyer Ron Mansfield calls Crown approach ‘angry’, ‘unbalanced’
The identity of a leading entertainment figure sentenced today to home detention for sexual assault-related charges can soon be made public.
A High Court judge ruled name suppression for the man, who was on trial for three months this year, will lapse on December 8.
The man was foundguilty by a High Court jury in Rotorua in August of indecent assault by touching a woman’s body under clothing and attempted sexual violation of the same woman.
He was found not guilty of 23 other charges, including serious sexual and drug-related offending involving nine women.
Justice Layne Harvey said during sentencing that the man’s actions were “unjustified” and “unacceptable”.
“I do not accept that she encouraged in any way – in any way – the conduct that occurred that night.”
During sentencing, Justice Harvey said the victim was staying with the man and his family when he woke her and asked her to drive him and a friend into town because she was sober. She agreed to do so before they returned to the house.
The man woke her again about 3am, kissed her and touched her under her clothes. Justice Harvey said the jury found those actions were either consensual or the man believed they were consensual.
He said the man left the room and returned with alcohol and tried to get the victim to drink it.
He picked her up from the bed and held her against a wall, where he indecently assaulted her, trying to touch her under her underwear. He then tried to sexually violate her.
Victim: ‘I am fearful for future victims’
The woman sat beside Crown solicitor Anna Pollett, who read her victim impact statement to the court.
In it, the victim described the man as “disgusting and repulsive” and said his offending had had a profound and traumatic impact.
She feared the man during the investigation period, carrying a panic alarm and having a security system installed.
The offending had left her traumatised. She found it hard to sleep, would have nightmares and on one occasion had a panic attack.
Her statement said she found it hard to sleep beside a man and it had been difficult for her to maintain a relationship.
She said she often saw the offender and his wife at a shopping complex and out exercising and it was a “constant reminder of the awful man he is”.
She “implored” Justice Harvey to hand down a sentence that would send a clear message such behaviour must not be tolerated.
Pollett said there were significant disputes around the facts of the case and the defence had sought to mitigate and minimise the offending.
Pollett said the woman was crying, yelling at the man and repeatedly saying “no” but he continued anyway.
“This was force. He had his body weight against her. The woman was not there to socialise … She ought to have felt safe.”
The man was sentenced in the High Court at Rotorua. Photo / Andrew Warner
Pollett said a $10,000 payment that was made for emotional harm should not be a “get-out-of-jail-free card” and she urged Justice Harvey to hand down a prison sentence.
She said the man had served home detention before, for violent offending, and he had promised to give up drugs and alcohol but had not done so.
She noted his pre-sentence report said he was at a medium risk of reoffending and a high risk of causing harm to others.
The man’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield, KC, said he was not expecting the Crown to take such an “angry approach” in submissions and noted before he addressed the judge that the Crown’s “extreme and unbalanced” view of the facts was “not helpful”.
Mansfield suggested a starting point for sentencing of less than two years in prison, within the range to be converted to home detention.
He said the man was prepared to carry out a community sentence and “pick up a broom or spade” if need be. He suggested the end sentence should be community detention, community work or home detention.
Mansfield said the man had not been involved in drugs and alcohol since his arrest. It had been an “enriching experience” and he did not want to be involved in drugs and alcohol again.
The sentence
Justice Harvey sentenced the man to 12 months’ home detention on the lead charge of attempted sexual violation, which is the maximum sentence for home detention. He sentenced him to eight months’ home detention for the indecent assault charge. The sentences would be served at the same time.
Attempted sexual violation carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ jail and indecent assault has a maximum jail term of seven years.
The judge urged the man to use the time to “seriously focus” on his rehabilitation, address drug and alcohol issues and his “attitudes towards women”.
He ordered him to complete drug and alcohol programmes and a sexual violence programme.
The man was supported in court by eight members of the public.
Background to the three-month trial
The trial started on May 15 and the jury returned its verdicts on August 7.
Pollett presented a case alleging the man had offended against nine women over several years. Details of where and when the alleged offending happened could not be reported while the suppression order remained.
Pollett argued the man took advantage of his position in the entertainment industry to get what he wanted sexually from women, even if they said no. Pollett said he would use illicit drugs to allow him to have his way with some of the women.
The man took the stand for more than six days to give evidence in his defence and admitted a lifestyle of what Mansfield summarised as “sex, drugs and rock’n’roll” – consuming drugs including cocaine, ecstasy and methamphetamine and having between 30 and 40 affairs.
His wife testified that she knew he was unfaithful. She was okay with it as long as he did not have relationships with the women.
Mansfield argued the police and others used the first woman’s complaint to get “numbers” to back up their case and encouraged other women to come forward. He said they created a “MeToo-fest” and most of them had reasons for wanting to bring the man down.
Hetold the jury there was not enough evidence that the sexual advances or actions were non-consensual.
Mansfield was also highly critical of the police investigation, particularly the fact that the complainants’ phones were not presented as evidence of alleged messages that would back the Crown’s case.
Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.
