Final suppression for Port Hills indecent assault offender

A man who indecently assaulted eight women walking or exercising on the Port Hills has been allowed final suppression that will keep his identity secret.

Christchurch District Court Judge Jane Farish said she was also imposing detailed suppressions relating to the 64-year-old man’s ethnicity and religion because of “significant cultural complexities”.

The man has already had to shift houses because of community reaction even though his name has not been published. “Defence counsel has referred to the unfortunate and inappropriate conduct of a member of the public in relation to your wife, that necessitated you having to move address,” said the judge.

“It was racially based and inaccurate in terms of what was alleged against you.”

The man was sentenced to do 300 hours of community work and placed on supervision for a year after admitting the eight charges.

But the judge decided to grant final suppression because of the effects publication would have on him, and his prospects for rehabilitation, and on his wife and children. The media were allowed to publish that he is a refugee of Middle Eastern extraction.

She was also critical of the media’s coverage of the case.

“The misnomer ‘Port Hills groper’ has vilified you in relation to this offending,” she told the man. “It has portrayed your offending at a level which has never been claimed by any of the complainants.”

The man had admitted touching the breasts of seven women and the bottom of another. He had kissed or licked some of the victims.

Judge Farish said it appeared from the psychologist’s report that “cultural ambiguities” may have led to some of the offending.

The man will have to carry out any treatment or counselling as directed by community probation to reduce his risk of reoffending. Judge Farish said she expected probation to liaise with Migration Services about arrangements for the man’s reintegration into New Zealand society.

Police opposed final name suppression, but accepted that a home detention sentence could be imposed. Prosecutor Stephen Burdes noted that the man denied the offending in the probation interview and the psychologist’s report. “He is not showing remorse, not accepting responsibility,” he said.

Defence counsel Moana Cole said there was a genuine prospect of rehabilitation, and imprisonment was not warranted. “Measures have been put in place by the family. The pre-sentence report refers to a safety plan to protect him as well as the wider community.”

Judge Farish said: “It is not just an issue about sexualised offending. There are wider cultural issues here, which he needs assistance with.”

The significant shame and embarrassment that the offending had brought upon the man and his family was already a significant deterrent. He was assessed as a low risk fo reoffending.

A psychological report and a report from an associate professor had referred to him and his family being shunned and socially isolated if his name were published. Reports to the court referred to “social death” for the family.

The judge described the offending as “bizarre, brazen, fleeting, and opportunistic”. The man had not been “hiding in the bushes” but had been walking along the Port Hills tracks as the women were.  The women had described being shocked and repulsed by his touching. Some of them had become hyper-vigilant or had stayed away from walking in the hills.

“All of them wished you received treatment so this doesn’t happen again,” the judge said.

The man suffered from various ailments, and his mental health had deteriorated since his arrest. He suffered from depression and anxiety, but he did not wish to take the prescribed medication.

Reports from the health professionals supported name suppression, and Ms Cole argued that the man and his family were vulnerable as refugees.

A judge at an earlier appearance had allowed the media to publish the man’s religion, expecting that in an enlightened community there would be some tolerance and understanding of the man’s position.

“Unfortunately, he was wrong. Some of the material that I have seen has been racist, misleading, inaccurate and quite inappropriate.”

It is believed three of the victims were in court, and one of them read out her victim impact statement. She said the man had walked up and touched her breast. “I was shocked that he did it. It seemed such a normal thing for him to do.” She felt humiliated and eventually angry, but she had continued walking in the hills. “I am not going to let the offender stop me from doing what I enjoy.”

She said: “I believe he knew what he was doing was wrong and he just thought he could get away with it.”

His continuing denials had added to her anxiety.  “It is my opinion that he should be named and shamed. He has shamed us and he needs to take responsibility for his behaviour.”

Category: News