Two days later, the woman discovered the intimate moment had been recorded and posted to a Snapchat group for premier rugby players from multiple clubs across Taranaki.
Trent Pickering, 32, and the representative player, who has interim name suppression, were charged for their actions and at their sentencing this week, were supported in New Plymouth District Court by rugby union player Jesse Parete.
The court heard the unnamed offender, who applied for a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression, has a “very promising rugby career” and had letters of support from the New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA).
“The deterrent message will be lost if the discharge without conviction was granted,” he said.
The initial offending occurred on August 5 last year about 3.30am at a New Plymouth home following a night of drinking.
It has resulted in the woman, in her 20s, leaving the country after she was left feeling violated, anxious and feeling her reputation had been tarnished.
According to the Crown summary of facts, Pickering, the other man, the woman and a friend of the woman engaged in sexual activity together in the bedroom.
Following this, the woman went to have a shower and was followed into the bathroom by Pickering, who previously played for the Taranaki Development team and the Southern Rugby Club’s premier squad.
The other man joined them in the bathroom and also brought his phone with him.
The three agreed to further sexual activity while in the shower and as this played out, Pickering grabbed the other man’s phone and hit record.
In the video, the man looks at the camera and grins, waves a “hang loose” sign and then high-fives Pickering.
The woman could not see what they were doing and did not consent to the activity being recorded.
The following day, Pickering texted the other man and asked him for the video.
After receiving it, Pickering posted it to a Snapchat group featuring premier rugby players from across the region, and it quickly became a talking point at a rugby party that night.
The other man was at the party and, according to the summary, the video was being widely spoken about, shared and shown around. It is unknown exactly how many people have seen it.
On August 7, the woman found out about the video through her ex-boyfriend, who had been told about it by someone who lived in Australia and had seen it.
She messaged Pickering and the other man asking about the video but they both denied it existed.
Subsequent messages between the men showed they encouraged each other to continue denying it existed and to delete the video and screenshots from their phones.
When the woman pressed the men to come clean, Pickering sent derogatory messages to his co-offender about the woman.
“Yo g. We aren’t getting caught we allgood. F*** that hoe.”
The man responded with “Yo” and a laughing face emoji.
But by that point, the woman had obtained a copy of the video from her friend and taken it to police.
The men have admitted charges of making an intimate visual recording and publishing an intimate visual recording.
‘I didn’t get a choice’
At their sentencing, the woman’s victim impact statement, which was read on her behalf, spoke about how she felt embarrassed, angry, violated and betrayed.
She has since left New Plymouth for a fresh start, and to ensure she avoids seeing the men or anyone who may have seen the video.
“My reputation there is tarnished.”
The woman strongly opposed the man being discharged without conviction or for his name to be suppressed.
“I didn’t get a choice in what happened to me, so why should they get the opportunity to hide behind their actions and not be accountable for the decisions they made at that time.”
Kylie Pascoe, defence counsel for the man, said he was young, intoxicated, naive, his actions were not premeditated, and he wished to this day that he deleted the video instead of sending it to Pickering.
Arguing for permanent name suppression and a discharge without conviction, Pascoe said a conviction could potentially impact his “very promising rugby career”.
He was genuinely remorseful and had sought counselling to assess his drinking and behaviour towards women.
Pickering’s lawyer, Josie Mooney, said the offending arose through alcohol and immaturity, and he accepted the significant harm he had caused the victim.
She said while Pickering, who has a baby on the way, had previous convictions, including two male assaults female, prison, as sought by the Crown, was an “unjustifiable leap”.
Crown prosecutor Rebekah Hicklin said the aggravating factors included the harm caused to the victim, her vulnerability, and her breach of trust and privacy.
She submitted Pickering showed a pattern of harm towards women and harmful alcohol use and should be jailed for 14 months.
Hicklin accepted the other man’s offending was lesser than Pickering’s but said it was still very serious.
She opposed the discharge from conviction, stating the consequences he faced were a normal flow on from a conviction and that any impact on his rugby career would be speculative.
Hicklin said his remorse was limited and focused on his rugby career.
‘This activity is entirely unacceptable’
Judge Hikaka said the man had provided “a number of documents” in support of his applications.
“There was support for the promise that [the man] shows in his rugby potential from individuals, not only the CEO but also the local manager, of the New Zealand Rugby Players Association,” the judge said.
Information from NZRPA was that media attention to “these sorts of matters” does carry an impact, particularly for those at the start of their career, the judge said.
“There is a concern by the association of how these things can ‘stick’.”
NZRPA chief executive Rob Nichol told NZME he had provided a letter to the court when charges were first laid in November 2023 supporting interim suppression to “allow for legal advice, discovery and the judicial process to take its course”.
However, he said neither the NZRPA or himself personally had written any further letters or had any input “into any application for a discharge without conviction, or in relation to the offending, a conviction, sentencing or ongoing name suppression”.
He was surprised to hear his initial letter had been referenced in the sentencing.
“As we understand it the player has accepted responsibility for his actions, which are completely unacceptable, through his guilty plea and will now have to own the consequences as laid down by the judicial system.”
When assessing the man’s application, Judge Hikaka found the consequences of a conviction did not outweigh the gravity of the offending.
“There is a particular need to send ... a clear message that this activity is entirely unacceptable,” he said, declining the application.
“Since this offending, the sport concerned has benefited from a detective’s presentation of issues related to this sort of offending.
“The concern that I have, is that the deterrent message would be lost if the discharge without conviction was granted.”
The judge said the case indicated the high risk that drunk individuals place themselves in when they get involved in sexual activity and then go beyond the limits of consent.
The man was convicted and sentenced to 12 months of supervision and ordered to pay $1500 reparation. Permanent name suppression was declined but he was given 14 days interim suppression to allow his counsel time to appeal.
Judge Hikaka agreed Pickering’s culpability was higher than his co-offender’s and adopted the Crown’s starting point.
He said Pickering’s past and current offending was indicative of his lack of respect for women.
He sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment but then converted it to eight months' home detention, and ordered he pay $1500 emotional harm reparation.
- By Tara Shaskey
- Open Justice multimedia journalist, Taranaki
