Damien Lindsay Paisley, 43, was jailed for six years in 2021 before the Dunedin District Court after a jury found him guilty of three charges of sexual conduct with consent induced by threats, one of attempted sexual violation and one of making an intimate visual recording.
Counsel Rob Harrison argued the verdicts were "wholly unsafe" — taking aim at the trial judge, prosecutor and defence lawyer — but, in a decision released this week, the Court of Appeal rejected the legal challenge.
Paisley and the victim matched on dating app Tinder in 2020 and met for coffee after conversing online.
The communications later became intimate, which led to a video call during which both parties participated in sexual acts.
Paisley used an app on his phone to secretly record the exchange.
Over the following days, the defendant revealed the existence of the video, but the woman said she was unsure if he was joking.
Paisley said he would delete the video — if she came to his house.
The victim told the jury he put pressure on her through further video calls until she eventually relented.
She only planned to watch a movie with Paisley, she said.
But over the ensuing hours, he repeatedly raised the secretly recorded sex tape to push her into performing intimate acts.
The victim described one episode where the man forced her into a degrading position while he watched a Hollywood actress on television.
"Either he’s thought a lot about this or he’s done this before ... It was like a game," she told the court.
At trial, Paisley opted not to give evidence, but Mr Harrison told the Court of Appeal that was not an "informed decision" because he had not been told about the possibility of using a communications assistant.
A psychiatric report noted the defendant’s anxiety would have meant his capacity to give his account in court would have been less than the average person.
However, Paisley’s trial lawyer Anne Stevens KC said her former client had never presented as more anxious than others facing serious charges and had been consistent in his plan not to give evidence.
There were concerns "his contempt for the victim and rigid attitude would work against him in the eyes of the jury", the Court of Appeal heard.
"Any benefit that might have been gained by him giving evidence would have been minimal and not outweighed by the very real disadvantages and risks of doing so," Justices Jagose, French and Grice said.
"Significantly too, we have not been provided with any assessment explaining what a communication assistant would do or whether in fact one would have been recommended."
Paisley will see the Parole Board in January next year.
