A leading entertainment figure on trial for serious sexual assault and drug-related charges has been found not guilty of 23 of the 25 charges he faced.

The man, who has interim name suppression, has been on trial in the High Court at Rotorua for three months.

A jury of nine women and three men took just over two days to reach their verdicts after retiring to deliberate just before midday on Thursday.

The man was found not guilty of all but two of the charges. The two charges he was found guilty of related to the first complainant. Those charges were indecent assault by touching a woman’s body under clothing and attempted sexual violation.

Attempted sexual violation carries a maximum sentence of a jail term of 10 years and indecent assault carries a maximum jail term of seven years.

The man stood silently while the verdicts were read with his hands clasped in front of him. After the jury forewoman finished reading the verdicts, the man turned and smiled to seven supporters in the public gallery, including his wife. He and his wife blew each other kisses.

Justice Layne Harvey convicted him on the two charges and remanded him on bail to reappear for sentencing in October.

Justice Harvey also continued the man’s interim name suppression, which would be argued again at a hearing this month.

he would deliver a decision on continued name suppression and whether the man could remain on bail until his sentencing before the end of today.

The Rotorua Daily Post approached the man’s wife for comment outside court, but she declined.

Rotorua sexual abuse survivor and advocate Louise Nicholas supported the complainants during the trial and was in court most days.

She told the Rotorua Daily Post the women were in shock.

”I think they are quite stunned, to be honest. They were proud of themselves that they spoke up. They understand the system, that this is how it is, but the result was hard to take.”

Nicholas said she reminded the complainants there were still two guilty verdicts on serious charges.

”I have reminded them that yes, he has still got another day in court [sentencing].”

The man pleaded not guilty to 10 charges of indecent assault, four of sexual violation by rape, three of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, two of attempted sexual violation, two of burglary, one of assault with intent to commit sexual violation, one of supplying MDMA, one of supplying methamphetamine and one of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Crown Solicitor Anna Pollett presented a case alleging the man had offended against nine women over several years. Details of where and when the offending happened could not be reported while the man’s suppression order remained.

Pollett argued the man took advantage of his position in the entertainment industry to get what he wanted sexually from women, even if they said no. Pollett said he would use illicit drugs to allow him to have his way with some of the women.

The man took the stand for more than six days to give evidence in his defence and admitted a lifestyle of what his lawyer, Ron Mansfield KC, summarised as “sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll”, consuming drugs including cocaine, ecstasy and methamphetamine and having between 30 and 40 affairs outside his marriage.

The defendant’s wife, who was present during most of the trial supporting her husband, gave evidence she knew her husband was unfaithful and was okay with it as long as he did not have relationships with the women.

The man was first charged after a young woman made a complaint to police alleging five charges — three of indecent assault, one of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of attempted sexual violation.

She alleged the offending happened after she was asked by the man’s wife to go away with them and their family for the weekend. She said she knew the man’s wife but had only met him on the day of the alleged sexual assault.

She told the jury the man went into her bedroom in the middle of the night after a night of drinking and doing drugs and tried to kiss her. The young woman, who hadn’t been drinking, told the jury she was left upset and shaken and refused the man’s advances several times but he picked her up from her bed and held her against a wall and sexually violated her.

The man said in his evidence he kissed the young woman because he thought she was attracted to him, but in hindsight realised he was wrong. He denied doing anything else and said he stopped once she said “no”.

In all but one of the other cases, the man said he had consensual sexual encounters with the women. He denied they were unable to give consent.

One of the charges related to a teen who told the jury the man went into her bedroom, woke her up and indecently assaulted her after insisting he was going to sleep in her bed. The man was invited to sleep on the couch after a night out drinking by someone who lived at the house where she lived.

The defendant said in his evidence he had been cold and was looking for a blanket and did not realise he went into the teen girl’s room.

Mansfield argued the police and others used the first woman’s complaint to get “numbers” to back up their case and encouraged other women to come forward, but in doing that they created a “MeToo fest”. He alleged stories changed and consensual sexual encounters were “re-imagined” as criminal offences.

How the complainants were found cannot be reported for legal reasons.

Among the complainants was a woman who had a long-running “wild” but “toxic” affair with the man. She alleged he raped her on two separate occasions – one while under the influence of ecstasy and on the other after supplying her with methamphetamine.

The defence case did not deny the man lived a life many would see as morally wrong but stressed there was a difference between regretting sexual encounters and being the victim of something criminal.

Mansfield was critical of the police investigation, asking why police had not asked complainants and other witnesses to give their phones as evidence to provide proof of communications they said they had with the man. He said phone evidence would have shown if the complainants and witnesses were also talking with each other.

Complainants in sex cases have automatic name suppression.

The charges and verdicts

First complainant – 5 charges:

Charge 1: Not guilty of indecent assault by kissing the woman

Charge 2: Not guilty of indecent assault by touching her body under clothing

Charge 3: Guilty of indecent assault by touching her body under clothing

Charge 4: Not guilty of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration

Charge 5: Guilty of attempted sexual violation by attempting to use digital penetration

Second complainant – one charge

Charge 6: Not guilty of indecent assault by touching her another person’s house

Third complainant – one charge

Charge 7: Not guilty of sexual violation by rape after putting an unknown white powder drug in her mouth

Fourth complainant – one charge

Charge 8: Not guilty of indecent assault in her bedroom

Fifth complainant – one charge

Charge 9: Not guilty of indecent assault in her home

Charge 10: Not guilty of wilfully attempting to prevent the course of justice by asking a Crown witness to speak to two complainants about their statement

Sixth complainant – six charges

Charge 11: Not guilty of indecent assault by getting into her bed

Charge 12: Not guilty of indecent assault by getting into her bed a second time

Charge 13: Not guilty of supplying MDMA

Charge 14: Not guilty of sexual violation by rape while under the influence of ecstasy

Charge 15: Not guilty of supplying methamphetamine

Charge 16: Not guilty of sexual violation by rape in her bedroom after taking methamphetamine

Seventh complainant – three charges

Charge 17: Not guilty of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

Charge 18: Not guilty of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

Charge 19: Not guilty of sexual violation by rape

Eighth complainant – three charges

Charge 20: Not guilty of indecent assault by kissing her

Charge 21: Not guilty of indecent assault by touching her thigh

Charge 22: Not guilty of burglary by entering her house with intent to commit an imprisonable offence

Charge 23: Not guilty of assault with intent to commit sexual violation in the bathroom of her house

Charge 24: Not guilty of burglary by entering her house a second time

Charge 25: Not guilty of attempted sexual violation in her bed

The three-month trial

The trial got off to a shaky start on May 15 as the first jury had to be dismissed after just one day when one of the jurors realised they knew one of the witnesses.

Another jury was partially selected, but only eight of the 12 people could be found because less than half of the 400 potential jurors turned up for jury duty.

Justice Harvey adjourned for a day to allow court staff time to ring people who had been sent jury letters requesting they come to court.

The trial finally got under way with the Crown’s opening on May 17.

There were more hiccups along the way. The trial had to be adjourned for six days after jury members got Covid, and they missed another day when a bomb scare at the Rotorua Courthouse saw the building evacuated for several hours.

Proceedings were also stopped short on one of the days when, in unusual circumstances, the jury, some of the court staff and some of the lawyers got the giggles following a mispronunciation of a person’s name. Justice Harvey decided on that day it was best to finish slightly earlier to allow everyone to gather themselves.

Kelly Makiha is a senior journalist who has reported for the Rotorua Daily Post for more than 25 years, covering mainly police, court, human interest and social issues.