Victim rejects $200 payment from man who escaped conviction for her indecent assault

A young man who stalked a student home from Wellington’s Courtenay Place and assaulted her from behind to give himself “a treat” has escaped with a $200 fine because a judge considered a conviction could harm his employment prospects.

The attacker was also granted name suppression by Judge Andrew Nicholls, who said it would cause the man “extreme hardship” and that the aftermath of his offending, combined with the man’s anxiety, had left him in a “very dark and fragile place.”

The victim, a 20-year-old student, is refusing the emotional harm payment, saying the decision to let him off is “bleak” and shows how assaults on women are minimised.

“He’s just one guy out of so many who have been raised in a society that deems it okay to do that. That’s the reason I didn’t initially go to the police, because I was like ‘What’s one guy being convicted going to do?’,” says Claire (not her real name.)

READ MORE:
* Why the sentencing of a teen rapist Jayden Meyer went so wrong
* Name of man who broke into neighbour’s house to do a sex act – twice – is now permanently suppressed
* Raped with her boyfriend asleep in the room: ‘I felt sick’

“And then he didn’t get convicted at all. It just makes me angry.”

Critics says the judge’s decision is “unconvincing,” while sexual violence prevention advocates are questioning the treatment of sexual violence cases in court.

“As a legal academic, this shows premeditation and commitment to sexual offending. As a woman, this is the kind of sexual predator that terrifies me,” says Canterbury University Faculty of Law Associate Professor Debra Wilson.

“It wasn’t a moment of loss of control – he had a lot of time to walk away, and he chose not to.”

It comes after high court judge Sally Fitzgerald this week concluded the nine-month home detention sentence handed down to multiple rapist Jayden Meyer was “manifestly inadequate”, and after a high profile Wellington man escaped conviction for sex act in neighbour’s home earlier this month.

A recent survey of Wellingtonians found more than half feel unsafe in the city at night.

’I felt his presence stalking me’

Claire was alone on Majoribanks Street at about 10.30pm in October 2021 when her skin started to prickle.

“I felt his presence kind of stalking me, he was very close, and he was following me. I checked the windows of the cars in the reflection, and he was right up against me, and that’s when I knew ‘OK, this guy definitely has intentions’ but I wasn’t sure how far he would be willing to go,” she said.

“Then when I went to turn into my street he grabbed my arse and tried to pull me in.”

Claire elbowed him, and he ran away, and she chased after him, she says. “Adrenaline just took over… I was definitely in shock, I was scared, and I had a lot of anger.

“I’d experienced similar things in bars and the whole cultural entitlement of it, the action, made me feel so outside of my own body, just an object. At that moment he had no regard for me being a human.”

It was frightening, had shaken her confidence and brought up previous trauma, she said. She has trouble sleeping, is attending counselling, and she still feels scared going into town without a man present.

It was every woman’s worst fear, Claire says. “I was by myself on the street, there was no-one I could really go to. I started yelling at him but no-one came out.

“Until it happens to you, it feels like something people regurgitate to keep you safe, but it just proved to me that no, there’s a reason for being super cautious.”

She didn’t go to police at first but changed her mind at the urging of her doctor. “To be honest I didn’t think that the police would really care, so it was nice to know they did.”

Claire wanted to be named as part of this article but as a victim of a such a crime she has automatic name suppression. After her year-long ordeal, she can’t face going through the system again to try and get it lifted, she says. “I’d rather be done with the courts.”

The attacker wrote Claire an apology letter she found unconvincing, and she did not want to be part of a restorative justice process, she said. “The letter was just bullshit, I didn’t buy a single word he said.”

It was “insulting,” that the courts had ordered him to make her a $200 payment, Claire said. “I’m not taking his money, it would show my acceptance that he did that, and I don’t accept it.

“What made me angry the most was not really the guy in particular because I consider him to be a loser, he doesn’t scare me, but it’s the culture he represents.”

‘This is not justice’

Police identified the man through CCTV footage, a stakeout, and his distinctive clothing. He told police had been walking home from the supermarket and decided to follow Claire through dark streets for ten minutes then lunge at her to “treat” himself.

Because he was not convicted, the DNA sample taken as part of his arrest was destroyed. Police asked the deputy Solicitor-General for consent to appeal the discharge, but this was declined earlier this month.

Indecent assault carries a maximum seven-year jail term.

In sentencing at Wellington District Court, Judge Nicholls acknowledged the impact the offending had on Claire. “It can have lasting effects on how the victim lives her life, and it contributes to the level of anxiety that women, unfairly, have to live with.”

He deemed the offending “moderate”, saying it was deliberate and not opportunistic. While the defendant had an anxiety disorder, there was no causal link.

However, his anxiety meant he was already withdrawn from society and a conviction would make it harder for him to gain a job, and have a “greater than usual impact” on his life.

“I do not underestimate the seriousness of what you did…however, having regard to your particular circumstances and the mental health challenges you face, and you are working on, I accept that a conviction could have lifelong consequences for your employment and integration into society.”

Wilson said employment issues were a natural consequence of conviction, and the man was a beneficiary with no evidence of a job offer or planned training.

“The judge doesn’t really explain how he reached the conclusion that a conviction would be out of proportion to the nature of the offending, apart from the potential effects on aspirational employment, which I find unconvincing.”

Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP Foundation executive director Kathryn McPhillips said the system was skewed towards offenders. “It’s all about the rights of the defendant and the impact on their life. We’ve got to start counting the victim as well, not just in this case but all cases.”

This was not justice, she said. “We understand the motivation to keep young people out of prison, but it’s like judges are moving on that without the whole reform being in place, which would focus on treatment and reparations and restoring the mana of those involved.

“You don’t restore your mana with a discharge without conviction, you restore it by understanding what you’ve done and making it right. We need to fix the system to make sure these remedies are available.”

Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu said no directive had been given for lighter sentences to be imposed.

Parliament decided the sentencing principles, and the judiciary was an independent branch of Government. “Judges take into account a number of factors before sentencing an offender including their individual circumstances.”