A Crown prosecutor has told a jury it is not a coincidence that a prominent New Zealand businessman has been accused of indecent assault by three men.
Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook
The Crown is making its closing statements in the trial of the high-profile rich lister, who has name suppression, at the High Court in Auckland.
He is accused of indecently assaulting three men on separate occasions in the early 2000s, 2008 and 2016, and making two attempts to dissuade a witness.
The businessman has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
His co-accused, who also has name suppression, faces one charge of attempting to dissuade a witness, which he too denies.
Crown prosecutor Simon Foote said it was not a coincidence the complaints made by the three men were similar.
Foote said there was no evidence the complainants knew each other; each came forward separately and they all had name suppression.
"All these men are telling you the truth," Foote told the jury.
He said each man felt the imbalance of power between themselves and the businessman: one said he had to walk a fine line, another felt pressured to be polite despite feeling uncomfortable.
Two of the complainants stated they tried to keep the conversation professional, but the accused would steer the conversation towards personal topics, Foote said.
He said the third complainant's claim began a "nightmare" for the accused - his reputation and business interests would be impacted if word got out about the complaints or if he was convicted.
The accused's ability to make or break the third complainants' career was a central part of the attempt to make him drop his claim, Foote said.
He said the third complainant faced significant pressure to retract his statement by an associate of the defendant, who has since pleaded not guilty to two charges of attempting to dissuade a witness.
Foote argued there was no evidence the third complainant was trying to blackmail the accused or that he made up the complaint.
The message to the man, Foote said, was if he continued with his claim, his career and reputation both in Aotearoa New Zealand and overseas would suffer but if he dropped the claim he would be paid out and his career would thrive.
Foote said this was a daunting scenario for the complainant, who maintained his position for over four years, through two trials and through two attempts to have him retract his statement in return for gain.
The businessman previously told the court he knew nothing of a plot to bribe a complainant to retract his statement.
This complainant was also planning to take his story to Australian media and tell his story there.
Foote said an associate of the accused worked with two public relations consultants to attempt to bribe the third complainant during a glitzy trip to the Gold Coast.
He told the court there was no doubt there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice with the accused associate pleading guilty to attempting to dissuade a witness, while the two PR consultants have been granted immunity for giving evidence for the Crown.
Foote argued there was no way that the accused did not know of this plan hatched by his associate as it was all for his benefit.
He said it was not realistic that the businessman was not consulted and involved in the plot, given that his "priceless" reputation and business interests were at stake.
It was also unlikely the associate would commit a crime on a whim, Foote said.
He said there was no invoice or contract regarding the PR consultants.
He said this was at odds with the businessman's usual meticulous record-keeping and was an attempt to leave no trace of the arrangement.
The defence case is that the claims are made up and that the complainants visited the businessman with the intention of getting money from him.
The Crown's closing arguments continue.