Source: Radio New Zealand
Police allege the man sexually assaulted four young boys during mirimiri. RNZ / REECE BAKER
Police say an investigation into a man accused of sexual offending against four young boys is being hampered by a “high degree of obfuscation” by the defendant and his wife.
The officer in charge of the investigation has outlined concerns the couple have “spread misinformation” and “created a culture of fear” in order to “prevent potential witnesses and complainants from engaging with Police”.
Extensive suppression orders prevent RNZ from being able to publish who the defendant is, where the alleged offending occurred and other details.
A District Court judge’s judgement from March, released to RNZ, said the man faces 18 charges alleging “serious sexual offending” between 2022 and 2024. The man has pleaded not guilty and elected trial by jury.
The judgement related to the man’s application for the continuation of interim name suppression until disposition of the proceedings.
- Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz
Police allege the man sexually assaulted four young boys during mirimiri. Mirimiri is a traditional Māori spiritual massage.
It is alleged in relation to one of the complainants, the defendant’s offending escalated to getting the complainant naked and performing sexual acts on him.
The man’s application for continued name suppression said publication of his name would cause extreme hardship to himself and his family.
The Crown opposed continuation of interim name suppression, submitting there were “positive reasons” for not allowing suppression to continue.
“It is submitted that the suppression of [his] name is impeding the investigation into the alleged offending and is likely impeding additional complainants from coming forward and reporting similar experiences with the defendant.”
They said there was “significant public interest” in his name being published.
The Crown also filed a formal written statement of a detective who is the officer in charge of the investigation who outlined difficulties faced by police in investigating the allegations.
“He has been made aware of a high degree of obfuscation by [the defendant] and his wife in relation to the charges.”
The detective outlined concerns that the couple had “spread misinformation” and “created a culture of fear” in order to “prevent potential witnesses and complainants from engaging with Police”.
One of the complainants and his parents filed written submissions supporting removal of the defendant’s name suppression.
“They express significant concern regarding the spread of misinformation which they believe has been exacerbated by the suppression order, leading to confusion and speculation in the community.”
The judge said the defendant’s lawyer challenged the detective’s statement, submitting it was largely inadmissible hearsay evidence. The judge disagreed, and said a formal statement is admissible for the purpose of any pre-trial application to the same extent as if it were oral evidence.
“The evidence of [the detective] is to the effect that [the defendant’s] current suppression is creating a barrier to the investigation of his alleged offending, and a barrier which the family and supporters of [the defendant] are hiding behind.”
The judge said it was also claimed there was “something of a campaign that the complainants’ allegations are lies and fabricated”.
The detective’s brief also addressed an issue of “bullying behaviour” in relation to those who might speak up for complainants or assist with police.
“It is not possible for me to properly assess the allegations of bullying and intimidatory behaviour without hearing evidence.
“Even if I were to find that such behaviour existed or exists, I would attach little weight to such a finding in terms of whether such conduct could be said to be impeding an investigation.”
The judge said he was able to conclude that the allegations have impacted the community with “various reactions to it, including a polarisation of views”.
“While these may have included assertions of lies and fabrication, I am not told of any specific behaviour that amounts to dissuading witnesses to give evidence or making a complaint – which might give rise to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.”
He said evidence appeared to show some witnesses and potential complaints had not felt able to come forward.
“It is of course in the interests of justice that complainants and potential complainants feel safe to speak about their experiences.”
The judge said there was “significant public interest” in the man’s name being published and the proceedings being open “so that if there are other complainants… they may feel as though they can safely come forward”.
The judge said the threshold for continuing name suppression was not met on any of the grounds advanced by the defendant.
“I am not satisfied that publication of his name will result in any hardship beyond that which is an ordinary consequence of alleged offending like this. The threshold for “extreme hardship” is very high, and it has not been met in this case.”
The judge declined the application for interim name suppression.
The man has appealed the judge’s ruling, with the matter set to be heard in a High Court next month.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand