A film executive who sexually assaulted two of his staff is asking the Court to wipe the convictions from his criminal record and give him permanent name suppression, so he can continue working in the industry.

The man, who has interim name suppression, was sentenced to 100 hours of community work in May and has taken his case to the Court of Appeal where arguments were heard on Thursday.

The two women who the 41-year-old was convicted of indecently assaulting have since left their chosen industry after making the difficult choice to come forward.

However, the man’s lawyer Marie Dyhrberg QC said her client wanted to continue working in the industry.

READ MORE:

* Entertainment boss sex case: Sexual assault survivor calls on Netflix, Amazon and Disney to blacklist abuser

* Entertainment boss sex trial: Mixed verdicts reached

* Entertainment boss sex trial: Harvey Weinstein and woman’s clothing choice irrelevant to case, judge says

“Publication will definitely destroy this man’s future and career and in all the circumstances, that is too high a price to pay.”

She said the international production companies will bring their own people to New Zealand if the man is no longer working in the industry and there was no public interest in that.

She referred to affidavits filed from supporters who have said despite the jurors’ findings, the man will continue to be employed by film production companies, provided he is not identified.

“Some people have said: ‘I would employ him based on what I know but not with publication [of the man’s name], that’s too big a price to pay’.”

Crown prosecutor Rebecca Thomson said the Court was being asked to let the industry off the hook by allowing the industry to turn a “blind eye” to the man’s conduct.

She said there were important public interest factors at play, especially given the man had now been convicted.

Thomson also said not only had the man been declined name suppression in the District Court, he had also lost an appeal in the High Court.

Neither lawyer made mention of the rights of potential future employees to know that their boss had been found guilty of indecently assaulting his staff.

The man is also asking the Court to grant him a discharge without conviction. If successful, it would wipe the convictions from his criminal record.

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.

Dyhrberg said her client was denied a discount on his sentence for good character because his defence had accused the victims of a conspiracy and that was not fair.

She also said the Judge made much of the breach of trust but said one of the women was 27 years old at the time and the other 33.

Dyhrberg described both indecent assaults as “brief and fleeting” that had occurred after the man had been drinking.

She said the following morning “one might sober up and say ‘that wasn’t clever, I wish I hadn’t done that’ but in terms of sexual harassment in the workplace, that’s pitching it too high.”

However, Thomson said that’s exactly what it was.

She referred to a 1991 court ruling which stated sexual harassment was no longer acceptable in the workplace. She said that judgement was now nearly 30 years old.

Thomson said the District Court Judge had referred to sexual harassment as a “societal evil” which was particularly relevant given what the industry had been through over the last few years.

“It perpetuates the culture of insidious sexual harassment that suggests male employers are free to act this way with female employees.”

She also noted that it appeared the man still did not accept the juror’s verdicts and did not realise the seriousness of the offending.

Justice Sarah Katz, Geoffrey Venning and Brendan Brown have reserved their decision.