More complaints about Scott
A judge has asked for an ‘‘informal undertaking’’ that a councillor convicted of indecent assault will not contact his victim or her family.
It comes as it is revealed five other staff complained about Ka¯ piti Coast councillor David Scott’s behaviour before he indecently assaulted his victim.
Scott is appealing the conviction, which formed part of the woman’s application for a restraining order, meaning the hearing for a restraining order must wait until after the appeal, Judge Chris Tuohy said.
Scott had opposed the application, saying that he didn’t accept the crime he was convicted of.
A jury found Scott guilty of indecent assault in May, after he rubbed his genitals against a council staff member during a morning tea at the council’s Paraparaumu headquarters last year.
The 72-year-old was convicted and fined $1500; his penis was measured by a doctor during the trial in an effort to challenge the woman’s evidence about what she could have felt. The measurements were suppressed.
He has been on a paid leave of absence from council while he waits for the appeal, likely to be in March.
The complaints from Ka¯ piti Coast District Council staff members were never put to Scott, at the request of the complainants, a council spokesman said.
Revealed under the Official Information Act, the complaints date back to February, 2015, and the spokesman said the council’s hands were tied.
‘‘The five staff members did not want their complaints being put to councillor David Scott. As a result, the council was unable to take any further action.’’
Scott denied he behaved inappropriately to any staff members.
His victim, who no longer works at council, sought a restraining order to stop him contacting her family.
In Wellington District Court on Wednesday, Judge Tuohy said an informal agreement from both sides ‘‘would hold the peace until we can get it to a hearing’’.
The application was not about Scott’s victim but a mutual agreement was ‘‘easier to sell’’, he said.
‘‘Hopefully, that will take the heat out of things while we’re getting this to court after the criminal proceeding has taken its course.’’
After her court appearance, Scott’s victim said she couldn’t believe he had opposed the restraining order.
‘‘I have to wait until March next year to take the next step in keeping my family safe? How is this even justice?’’