The Star: January 04, 2024

The Star Thursday January 4 2024
12
COURT
Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz
High-profile businessman groomed,
abused partner’s teenage daughter
He was a “highprofile”
and successful
businessman. She was
his de facto partner’s
teenage daughter.
One night in 2016 he
showed her a lewd
video on his phone,
sexually assaulted her
and threatened her
when she said she’d
call the police. She kept
the horrifying incident
secret for years but
found the courage to
report the man in 2020.
Senior journalist Anna
Leask reports on the
crime, the court case
and why the man can
never be named
A HIGH-profile Christchurch
businessman has admitted
sexually abusing his partner’s
daughter – but has been granted
permanent name suppression
to protect the victim, and so the
companies he is linked to do not
suffer “negative consequences”.
The man pleaded guilty to
three charges of indecently
assaulting a 16-year-old girl in
2016.
He had initially faced two further
charges of unlawful sexual
connection and having a sexual
connection with a dependent
family member but those were
dropped.
The court heard that the offender
was in a de facto relationship
with the victim’s mother
when the assault happened.
He went to the girl’s room one
night and “spoke to her about
school and then masturbation”
and showed her “masturbation
videos” on his cellphone and
placed his hand on her thigh.
The girl felt uncomfortable and
left the room.
Later that evening the offender
went back to her bedroom and
offered her $50 to “flash”.
She refused and asked him to
leave.
She went to sleep but woke later
when he came into her bedroom
a third time.
“(He) approached the victim
and placed his hand on top of her
pyjamas and touched her upper
leg, breasts and then vagina,” said
the police summary of facts.
“The victim told him to leave
or she would call the cops . . . approximately
two hours later (he)
entered the victim’s bedroom
wearing only a robe.
“He tried to apologise to the
victim – she again told him to
leave or she would call the cops.
“In a threatening manner (he)
stated ‘I wouldn’t do that if I was
you’ and again left the bedroom.”
The man initially denied the
offending, but in August pleaded
guilty to the three charges.
He was sentenced in the
district court by Judge Jane Farish
last month and she released
her written decision to the NZ
Herald.
“For all intents and purposes,
you were in a caregiving role
to her. You had been in a longstanding
relationship with her
mother . . . you were supposed to
West Coasters
Are you living off the Coast and would like to
keep up with the local news and events?
be there as someone to look up
to, a role model, and someone
who they were encouraged to
consider as a father figure,” Judge
Farish told the businessman.
She said showing the teen the
video was “a grooming exercise”.
Judge Farish blasted the man’s
response to the victim when
she said she would call police,
saying it was “forceful” and “an
adult against a child and as a
man against a vulnerable young
woman”.
“She took that as a threat. She
did not know what you were going
to do. From then on, she kept
that a secret until she could no
longer hold that in,” she said.
The man was charged in 2020
and did not plead guilty until
this year, which Judge Farish
criticised.
“The problem with that course
of conduct – you are entitled to
take that – but it locks her into a
court process which is harmful.
Really harmful, because it does
not allow her to move forward,”
she said.
“If you were genuinely remorseful,
you would have put
your hand up right at the beginning
and you would have said:
“I’m sorry,” and you would have
ABUSE:
The man
showed his
partner’s
daughter
a lewd
video on
his phone,
sexually
assaulted
her and
threatened
her when
she said
she’d call the
police.
PHOTO:
GETTY
pleaded guilty to those charges.
Judge Farish said she needed to
hold the sex offender accountable
for the harm he had caused and
it was evident the incident has
had a “significant effect” on the
victim that would be “lifelong”.
“It is also in order to deter your
offending, that is, not only to you
personally but publicly, to others
who think sexually offending
against young people, particularly
in a familial relationship, is
appropriate,” she said.
She said given his profession,
lengthy experience and success in
his field the man “definitely knew
better”.
She accepted he had been
drinking and his alcohol consumption
at the time was “most
probably out of control”.
She acknowledged he had
undertaken counselling “for an
excess of 13 months” to address
his alcohol issues and to make
sense of his “serious” offending.
But that did little to explain his
actions.
“The problems in your relationship
are not an excuse for what
you did. The problems with your
financial affairs, again, are not
an excuse for what you did,” said
Judge Farish.
“What you did was, you
were sexually attracted to the
complainant and you acted on
that, and she was vulnerable, and
you hoped that because of those
vulnerabilities, you might be successful.
“You really overstepped both a
moral boundary but also a criminal
boundary.”
The man claimed he was remorseful
but Judge Farish said it
was “too late” given he had forced
the young victim through a
three-year ordeal in court before
admitting the offending.
After considering the facts of
the case, Judge Farish set a starting
point of two years in prison.
The time was reduced slightly
by the guilty plea – albeit late –
and the payment to the victim.
Because the sentence landed
under the two-year mark the
man was eligible for home detention
and Judge Farish ruled that
was an appropriate punishment.
“A sentence of home detention
will have a significant impact
upon you – it will impact you in
relation to your employment,”
she said.
Judge Farish said to minimise
the impact of the sentence on the
man’s business and employees,
he would serve six months home
detention.
He is subject to a further six
months of special release conditions.
Judge Farish then granted the
man permanent name suppression.
She said his application alone
was not strong enough to meet
the threshold to keep his name
secret.
But the victim’s fears of being
identified if the man’s name was
published satisfied her it was the
right decision.
“As a matter of law, she is not
able to be identified unless she
wishes to waive that right to be
identified, and she does not want
that. She wants to be able to move
on in her life.”
– NZ Herald
Walk, Run, Fun!
We have new digital editions available for subscription.
Scan here
digital.greystar.co.nz
Supporting
charity
6km and 12km options
17 th March 2024
www.city2surf.co.nz