Reform call after victim told to pay

Lawyer speaks out over order for sexually abused woman to meet $28k court costs

The judicial system struggles to “grasp the impacts of trauma” for sexual abuse survivors, a lawyer said after a victim was told to pay her predator nearly $28,000 in court costs.

Mariya Taylor was 18 when a former sergeant — now known as “groper Roper” — bullied, verbally abused, sexually harassed and locked her in a cage between 1985 and 1988 at the Whenuapai Air Force Base.

Taylor abandoned her police complaint and last year sued Robert Roper alongside the AttorneyGeneral on behalf of the Defence Force in a bid for $600,000 in compensation — arguing her superior officers failed to act when informed of the sergeant’s crimes.

But after a High Court hearing, Justice Rebecca Edwards dismissed Taylor’s claim because it was barred by both the Limitation Act and by the Accident Compensation Act.

The Defence Force and Roper, who was granted more than $75,000 in legal aid, then sought court costs.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told senior Defence officials to back down, leading to their dropping its costs claim last month.

But yesterday Taylor was ordered to pay Roper $27,819.25, despite the judge accepting many of her claims.

One of Taylor’s lawyers, Geraldine Whiteford, told Newstalk ZB the decision sets a “really bad precedent for victims of abuse who wish to . . . seek justice against their abusers”.

Her client is now retraumatised by being forced to pay her abuser, Whiteford said. “She is devastated.”

The Government, she said, should consider reforming High Court costs rules to “ensure survivors of sexual abuse are not further victimised”.

“It’s a very bad message to give survivors . . . I think the judicial system really struggles to grasp the impacts of trauma on the victims of sexual abuse.”

Taylor will consider taking her case to the Court of Appeal. Whiteford said it was a “valid option” for Defence to consider paying the costs.

A Givealittle page has been set up to help Taylor with her legal fees.

Lawyer Graeme Little, who also acted for Taylor, argued Roper’s conduct was “outrageous, disgraceful and deplorable”, and yet he has not suffered any penalty for his abuse.

He said Roper’s defence was “unmeritorious and technical” and should not carry any order for costs. Justice Edwards agreed in part. “There can be no dispute that Mr Roper’s conduct towards Ms Taylor was heinous. But Mr Little’s submission confuses the proper function of an award of costs,” she said.

“The starting point is that Mr Roper successfully defended the claim against him, and is therefore entitled to an award of costs.”

But the judge did reduce Roper’s claim by 50 per cent to reflect the findings he assaulted and falsely imprisoned Taylor.

Roper, whose legal costs totalled more than $100,000, also received $75,888 in legal aid for both costs and disbursements.

Taylor was one of nine new complainants or witnesses who came forward after Roper was first charged when his crimes came to light in 2012.

Now in his 70s, he was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment in 2015 after being found guilty of 20 sex charges against five women.