Exposing ‘predator’ comes at high price
Survivors of sexual abuse in the film industry who risked their careers to testify against boss say big US studios should never hire him again. By Edward Gay.
PAGE 10
A woman who put her career in the film industry on the line to testify about being indecently assaulted by her boss has called on major American production companies to never hire him again.
She is one of two women who faced a horrific choice – either speak out about her boss’ sexual abuse or stay silent to keep their careers.
Both women chose to speak up but it came at a cost.
Their former employer, a leader in the industry in his 40s, was found guilty on two charges of indecent assault, following a jury trial at the Auckland District Court in January.
On Friday he was sentenced to 100 hours’ community work.
At the sentencing, one victim said that her career had been ruined, but she felt compelled to speak out to protect other women.
‘‘I had nothing to gain from doing this and a lot to lose, but for the sake of the future safety of other women, I thought this was enough of a reason alone to help ensure that no one else endures the emotional, mental and financial distress I have experienced.’’
She said some people whom she had once considered friends had sided with the man, so they could continue getting work in the industry.
‘‘These were people who I had confided in about what the offender had done to me, and they had also witnessed part of what happened,’’ she said.
‘‘I believe that production studios such as Netflix, Disney, MTV and Amazon need to be aware that the offender is a sexual predator and that by hiring him they are putting other female contractors at risk of being victims of sexual violence.
‘‘I felt that the offender took my power away over the last five years and I want him to know that I now take it back.’’
In a victim impact statement read in court, the second victim said her career had been ‘‘completely ruined’’.
‘‘By speaking out I lost my job, income, career and my future,’’ she said.
‘‘I am hurt knowing that he is protected by people who do not choose to believe victims, that he has just kept getting on with his life while I have had five years struggling with depression and loss of will to live, simply because I chose to stand up to him, to let him and others know that this was an abuse of power, that what he was doing to women in the industry needed to stop.’’
The charges related to him rubbing a woman’s thigh at a bar and saying: ‘‘You look after me and I’ll look after you.’’
Another related to his behaviour in a hotel room while on a shoot. He touched a woman in front of others on a bed and later tried to get inside her hotel room.
The jury found him not guilty of another charge and failed to reach a decision on three others.
A bid by the man’s lawyer to keep his name secret and escape criminal convictions for indecent assault failed.
However, the Sunday StarTimes is prevented from naming the man after his lawyer immediately appealed the decision to the High Court.
At his sentencing on Friday, Crown prosecutor Hannah Clark said the man believed he would get away with his sexual abuse.
‘‘The women had to choose: ‘Do I speak out or do I keep my livelihood’ and that entails continuing to work under the man who has indecently assaulted them and which they did do for some time.’’
Judge Russell Collins said the women had been subjected to an ordeal by having their character attacked in court.
‘‘The societal harm of this sort of offending where, fuelled by alcohol, an employer in a position of power tries it on with a younger female employee . . . That has to stop. It’s unlikely to stop by urging the victims to come forward and going through what they have to. It will stop and society will be far better for it, when men stop.’’
The man’s lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg QC, argued her client faced financial ruin if he was convicted and named because large American film production companies, including Netflix and Amazon, would no longer employ him.
She filed affidavits from members of the industry who said the film production companies would continue to employ the man, despite what he had been found guilty of, provided his name was not made public.
But Judge Collins said the man had used his position in the industry to sexually offend but wanted to keep his name secret so he could continue to work in the same industry.
He said while Dyhrberg had argued the court should not dictate to the industry, he saw it as the opposite.
‘‘I would view it as a particular industry or employer dictating to the court, what the court should do and what that particular industry or employer wouldn’t have the courage to do if it believed its position was inherently right on its own merits.’’
Judge Collins said the affidavits were opinions of industry insiders and were not directly from production companies such as Amazon and Netflix.
He said he accepted the man’s financial position was precarious but the film industry had been devastated by the Covid-19 pandemic and the man would have to seek alternative employment anyway.
In deciding whether to grant a discharge without conviction, the judge had to weigh the gravity of the offending, the consequences of a conviction and whether those consequences were out of all proportion to the offending.
Judge Collins said the man had abused his power as an employer and breached the trust of his employees.
‘‘Sexual abuse is a social evil, and particularly so in the workplace where it prevents a person reaching their potential. That is an injustice to that victim and it is a crime against a civilised society.’’
The judge said the social harm of the man’s offending did not warrant a discharge without conviction.
The man will stand trial on the three charges that the jury could not reach a verdict on. A date for the trial is yet to be set.
In the meantime he has 20 working days to file his appeal.
‘‘I am hurt knowing that he is protected by people who do not choose to believe victims.’’ Victim impact statement