Youth worker on trial
A prominent Otago man told police sexually abusing a teenage boy would be against "everything I’ve stood for all my life".
The man, who has interim name suppression, is on trial at the Timaru District Court this week defending charges of an indecent act on a young person, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and indecent assault.
The charges relate to one complainant and are alleged to have occurred between 2014 and 2019, after the defendant had gained the trust of the boy and his family through his role working with youth.
Yesterday, the jury was played the defendant’s interview with police, during which he denied any intentional indecency.
When Detective Mark Durant asked the defendant about the allegation he sexually violated the teenager, he replied "not true, absolutely not true".
"In his dreams," the defendant said.
"That would be putting aside everything I’ve stood for all my life, it just didn’t happen."
The thought of it was "abhorrent", he said.
He did admit accidentally indecently touching the complainant, but said that was only after he had "plonked himself" on the defendant’s knee.
"He came out with two words that I couldn’t believe: ‘I consent, I consent’," the defendant said.
"I thought ‘for f... sakes, what’s he on about?"’
The defendant said he would "never ever ever" grope the boy.
"I think he looked up to me.
"I don’t know why he’s doing this."
The defendant said he was "appalled" by the allegations.
"He’s a likeable enough young man, [but] he exaggerates, he had bits of illusion, he can be a bit of a story-teller," the defendant said.
The teenager was also prone to throwing "hissy-fits" while involved with the defendant through his role working with youth and was "a needy young man", the defendant told police.
He said the alleged incidents before picking the boy up from school were "not possible" because he started work at 8.30am.
The accused ended the interview by saying "what I’ve said there is gospel".
But a woman who worked with the defendant at the time, yesterday gave evidence the defendant was late about twice a week.
"He would’ve been part-time ... it was always a bit difficult to know when he was working, he did his own thing a bit," she said.
She said she and the defendant usually had an informal meeting when work started at 8.30am, so noticed when he was not present.
Yesterday’s evidence concluded the Crown case.
