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 Christchurch District Court by Judge Jane Farish last month and she released her written decision to the Herald today.
"For all intents and purposes, you were in a caregiving role to her. You had been in a long-standing relationship with her mother… you were supposed to be there as someone to look up to, a role model, and someone who they were encouraged to consider as a father figure," she told the offender.
"You significantly betrayed the trust not only of the complainant but also of her mother in relation to sexual offending against her.
"It was persistent on that night."
Judge Farish said showing the teen the video was "a grooming exercise".
"She then went to sleep hoping that she would be safe, but she was not because you came back… she had the courage and the bravery to tell you to f**k off.
"But you came back again."
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 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.
"It was not just what you did to her in the bedroom that was impacted. It was her overall privacy.
"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 pleaded guilty to those charges.
"You needed to man up when you were first charged and admit your offending, and you did not."
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.
Judge Farish said the offending was "a significant abuse of trust" to the girl and her mother and the playing of the video proved a degree of premeditation and grooming.
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 that 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.
"There is further credit that I could give you in relation to good character, but I am not convinced that that is appropriate at this time given your persistence with your alcohol problems and your inability or your lack of interest in dealing with that prior to you being charged in relation to these matters," she said.
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.
"You will also be wearing an electronic bracelet so if you want to go out in public, people will see that you are on an electronic bracelet, so you will not be able to hide the fact that you are a sentenced prisoner.
"By a narrow margin, a sentence of home detention in my view will meet the principles and purposes of sentencing and hold you accountable but for the harm."
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.
"You have a reasonably high public profile, and what happens in New Zealand if you have a reasonably high public profile is the tall poppy syndrome," the judge told the offender.
"You are likely to get more publicity than you would as if you were someone with less of a profile.
"I have looked through all of that material that you have filed. If that was the only issue before the Court, I would not grant you permanent name suppression.
"I think there will be consequences for you if your name were to be published in terms of your business, but you are not the business.
"The company is bigger than you, You have staff. They work very, very hard… You are the conduit and you might have been the front face of the business, but it does not all rest with you.
"It rests with the company and what the company has been able to achieve over the years. So although there may be some negative consequences, it would not have the catastrophic consequences that you imagine it would have."
Judge Farish said the "very pressing issue" for her was the undue hardship to the victim if the man was named.
"There is a conflict for her as well. That is, very much she would like you to be known as she said as the monster that you are. However, her real fear is that she will be identified," she said.
"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.
"If your name was to be published, she has a very real and genuine fear that she will be identified and very quickly because of your long-time association with her mother.
"Therefore, only on that basis, am I satisfied that a permanent order for suppression of name should be made. It is to protect her and not you and not your company.
SEXUAL HARM
Where to get help:
If it's an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you've ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
• Call 0800 044 334
• Text 4334
• Email support@safetotalk.nz
• For more info or to web chat visit safetotalk.nz
Alternatively contact your local police station - click here for a list.
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it's not your fault.
