Entertainment leader trial: Business partner accused of exploiting sexual assault allegations to snag cheap stock

The former business partner of a high-profile entertainment figure facing serious rape, sexual assault and drug-related charges took immediate steps to disown a woman after her allegations surfaced, a High Court jury has heard.

But the man’s lawyers allege the former business partner used the woman’s sexual assault allegations to “engineer” the man to sell him a stake in his business at a discount.

The former assistant gave evidence to the Crown in a trial in Rotorua as a man faces 25 charges relating to nine women.

The man on trial has temporarily withheld his name so his former business partner could not be identified.

In the official charge, the man believed he had the right to do whatever he wanted with women because of his status. He was allegedly obsessed with sex, and if he wanted it, that was all that mattered.

The charges include four counts of rape and ten counts of indecent assault. Some of the complainants allege that before raping or sexually assaulting them, he forced the white powder into their mouths, spiked their drinks or forced the ecstasy into their mouths. Some people claim they have no control over their bodies.

Police opened a case against the man after the first woman complained, and it has now turned into a “MeToo fest” with women “re-inventing” the time they spent with the man, the defense said. The defense argued that sex and drug use with various women was part of the industry, and many of them were part of the lifestyle.

Last week, the Crown’s first witness told the jury she was living in a house with the accused when he entered her bedroom, forcibly kissed her, pushed her against a wall and sexually assaulted her.

Questioned by crown prosecutor Anna Pollett, the former business partner told jurors today he was informed of the allegations the next day and took immediate steps to “exit” the man’s business contacts.

“That’s not us. We don’t want our business to be associated with that. There’s a moral obligation there. It was an easy decision for us.”

He told the jury that he had approached the accused about the allegations, with the man commenting: “I may have gone too far this time”.

Defense attorney Ron Mansfield KC suggested the former business partner used the charge to force the accused to sell his shares at below market prices.

“You’re only concerned with allegations so you can arrange a sale,” Mansfield said.

The former colleague dismissed the suggestion, saying: “There have been many allegations, but this time I choose to trust the source.”

Mansfield suggested the former partner give police more evidence months after the alleged assault because he saw an opportunity to discredit the accused and make money by securing cheaper stock.

“I suggest that the person you’re interested in is yourself,” Mansfield told the former colleague.

He responded to Mansfield: “I advise your clients.”

The former partner said he did not reveal everything he knew at the time because he was trying to remain neutral.

He said it had been a difficult time because he was dealing with the man, whom he described as “very controlling”.

Mansfield also asked the former business partner about a group chat he had with the man and another person who mentioned cocaine.

The former business partner admitted that he, the man and others regularly used cocaine. He admitted other commonly used drugs were methamphetamine, ecstasy (ecstasy) and cannabis.

Earlier in the day, the jury heard the woman’s final testimony as she described how the drunken man entered her bedroom and forcibly laid her on top of her while she was asleep – even though his wife was sleeping nearby.

She said she told the man: “What are you doing? Think about your wife… let me go.”

The attack didn’t end until the man suggested they were in a hotel room away from his wife the next day, she said. She told the jury she agreed with the man’s suggestion because she felt it was her only “way out” for the attack to stop.

The woman’s sister testified and told the jury that her sister contacted her and her partner the morning after the assault and sounded “hysterical” on the phone.

She told them something bad had happened and they agreed to see her because they didn’t want her on a long trip in that state.

The six-week trial was before Judge Lane Harvey and a jury of nine women and three men.

Judge Harvey had earlier ruled that the man’s provisional name withholding would be resolved after the first week of the trial. He listened to Pollett and Mansfield today and reserved his decision until tomorrow.