The man, who has interim name suppression, is on trial at the Timaru District Court this week after pleading not guilty to two charges of doing 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 from 2014 to 2019, after the defendant had gained the trust of the boy and his family through his role working with youth.
Yesterday afternoon, the complainant’s mother gave evidence about when her son revealed what the defendant had allegedly done to him.
"I was concerned, because of [the defendant’s] role with youth, that others might be at risk ... and that it possibly should be reported," she said.
But her son did not want to get the defendant in trouble and did not want his mother to confront the man about it.
She was aware the complainant had been spending time with the defendant, and recalled thinking one activity they did together was "a bit odd".
"We fully trusted [the defendant]," she said.
"We felt that [he] was a grandfatherly figure for [my son]."
She had respected the defendant, and thought he encouraged and supported her son, who had struggled to make friends, the complainant’s mother said.
The complainant was "quite physically upset" when telling her about the alleged sexual violation, she said.
"They were very serious allegations; I was concerned for [my son]," she said.
Once her son disclosed the full extent of what the defendant did to him, she texted the defendant and asked him not to contact their family again and blocked his number.
On Monday, the court heard the defendant took on "somewhat of a mentoring role" with the boy before allegedly indecently touching him before taking him to school.
The Crown alleged the defendant also sexually violated and indecently assaulted the boy while on a trip, and performed an indecent act on him when he visited for dinner.
Earlier yesterday, during cross-examination, Philip Hall, KC, suggested the defendant had touched the complainant indecently, but by accident.
He said the complainant had been trying to sit on the defendant’s knee, and when the man pushed him off he accidentally touched his genitals.
But Mr Hall suggested that after that, the complainant said: "I consent, I consent."
The complainant denied that was the case, saying the man had touched him out of the blue and he had "never initiated or consented" to the indecency.
On Monday, the court heard an intercepted phone call between the defendant and complainant, where the defendant apologised when the complainant vaguely referred to events between them.
After bringing up one incident at a specific location, the defendant said: "That was one of the saddest things really, because that shouldn’t have happened. You were encouraging that."
The complainant did not accept that comment was in relation to an accidental touch, but rather a sexual violation.
During the call, the defendant also said: "That’s the one and only time in my life and it will be the one and only time."
Mr Hall also asked the witness about a time he had a "massive meltdown" and the defendant took him to hospital.
The witness explained he was hyperventilating after becoming claustrophobic, but had calmed down by the time he got to hospital.
Mr Hall suggested that was an episode which demonstrated the complainant’s tendency to attention-seek.
The witness disagreed with that, although accepted when he was younger he could be an attention-seeker at times.
He denied having "little bits of illusion from time to time" and being "a bit of a story-teller", as the defendant suggested to police.
The relationship between the defendant and the teenager was also explored by Mr Hall.
The complainant accepted that at times he enjoyed the defendant’s company and he valued their friendship.
Under cross-examination, the complainant conceded he was probably wrong about the date of the sexual violation, but was sure it happened.
The trial continues today.
