Jurors heard the couple lived a life of luxury funded by Harris, where money was not an issue and trips away with other high-flyers were common. But outside of public view, it was a toxic relationship in which he belittled her and at times became violent, prosecutor Pip McNabb had alleged.
Adam Harris, photographed at the Hawke’s Bay Chamber offices in 2012. Photo / Glenn Taylor
The woman, a model who also worked part-time for the defendant’s business, alleged Harris capped a night of heavy drinking by getting into an argument, then lunging at her like an “MMA fighter”. He was alleged to have struck her on the jaw, straddled her, strangled her and then dragged her out of his Auckland Central apartment, tossing her into the hallway.
The woman suffered extensive bruising and a concussion, the Crown alleged during his three-week trial.
“I felt extremely helpless,” the woman told police. “I felt like I was fighting for my life. I was terrified.”
‘Going to get ugly’
But defence lawyer Ron Mansfield, KC, called witnesses who said the woman had a history of biting and scratching Harris when they would argue after she had been drinking. Harris never strangled the woman but he did forcefully remove her from his home that morning in self-defence, the lawyer argued.
The woman, in her lengthy stint in the witness box, acknowledged having bitten the man on previous occasions and having bitten him on the thumb on the night in question. But she claimed it was only in response to what she described as ongoing abuse.
Ron Mansfield, KC, represented Adam Harris at his Auckland District Court family violence trial, which ended with an acquittal on all charges. Photo / Michael Craig
Mansfield said many aspects of the woman’s account did not add up, including her having messaged Harris’ property developer friend that same morning, asking him to tell the defendant to let her back in. It suggested, the defence lawyer said, that she wasn’t afraid but embarrassed.
“It’s humiliating for her, given her conduct, to be locked outside in the hallway like she was a naughty girl,” he argued.
Mansfield noted that the woman texted Harris to say, “This is going to get very ugly” and “I know my rights but I’d rather do this nicely.”
He also repeatedly referenced a legal letter of demand the woman’s solicitors sent the man a week after he was charged, seeking $100,000 as part of an ultimately unsuccessful employment claim.
Jurors returned the unanimous not guilty verdicts after about six hours of deliberations over two days.
Last-minute suppression
Harris did not initially have name suppression but the case had not yet been reported in the media as his trial neared. Then, a week before the trial began, an interview with both Harris twins was published in the Herald’s popular Society Insider column.
“Multimillionaire identical twins Matthew and Adam Harris are the men often spotted about town driving a McLaren 720S Coupe and a Porsche 911 Targa 4 GTS, respectively,” the interview began, noting that they share High St offices despite running unrelated businesses.
This social media photo of Matthew Harris and Adam Harris was featured in the November 2024 Society Insider column about the identical twins, which ran days before Adam Harris’ trial was to begin.
The duo were described as often posting their glamorous-looking adventures – via choppers, private jets and super yachts – on social media.
“But beneath surface appearances of these globetrotting siblings, who are understood to be worth tens of millions of dollars, is a story of two hard-working boys from Hawke’s Bay, living their respective dreams,” the column noted.
After it was published, the Herald newsroom was tipped off that Adam Harris was facing criminal charges. Despite having only days to go before his trial began, he sought a last-minute temporary suppression when both the Herald and Stuff began inquiring about the case.
Then, on the first day of trial, Mansfield asked that suppression remain in place until the verdict. Judge Paul Murray declined the request but the accused signalled an intention to appeal, which effectively gave him suppression through trial anyway because it had been sought so late in the criminal justice process.
After the not guilty verdicts, Adam Harris made a new bid for permanent suppression, arguing that he, his brother and both of their businesses would suffer extreme hardship if identified. The judge again declined the application, stating that nothing had changed since his first decision, but it was appealed to the High Court at Auckland.
Businesses will suffer
During a hearing in March this year before Justice Michael Arthur, the former defendant argued that naming him might hurt his business’s reputation via social media commentary to the point where his 10 employees’ jobs could be at risk.
While social media commentary might not amount to extreme hardship in all cases, it does for a businessman whose livelihood depends on social media, defence lawyer Sam Teppett argued. He described Adam Harris as the “public face” of the marketing business, which helps commercial clients with their social media presence.
Justice Michael Arthur. Photo / Michael Craig
“While attitudes and tolerances will differ amongst Mr Harris’ clients, I accept that they will generally be protective of their brands and own reputations,” Justice Arthur noted in his decision.
“Some will be concerned about associations with providers who themselves are subject to negative publicity.”
But he ultimately agreed with the District Court judge that the former defendant’s concerns were manageable, not reaching the “extreme hardship” required to supersede the principle of open justice.
“Mr Harris’ description of the reputation and the status that both he and his business have established indicates that the support of many [including clients] will not be damaged by the publication of his name,” Justice Arthur wrote.
“I am also confident that any mainstream reporting will be fair and will explain the acquittal.”
The judge said he was likewise unconvinced that publicity would result in extreme hardship for twin Matthew Harris.
“A potential occurrence of mistaken identity does not amount to hardship, let alone extreme hardship,” he said.
The fact Adam Harris was found not guilty also does not tip the balance in his or his brother’s favour, the judge concluded.
“There remains a legitimate public interest in proceedings that lead to an acquittal,” he said.
‘Significant impact’
In a statement released to the media today, Adam Harris said it was a deeply distressing experience to have been “accused of serious offences when you know you have done nothing wrong”.
“While the verdict brought enormous relief, the process itself has had a significant impact,” he said. “I had sought to protect my family and reputation throughout these proceedings, including through applications for name suppression.
“However, I have decided not to pursue any further appeal on that issue and accept the principle of open justice.”
He thanked those who supported him through the process.
“I hope that people will respect the jury’s verdict and recognise that the allegations were rigorously tested in court and ultimately rejected,” he added.
“Now that the matter has concluded, my focus is on moving forward.”
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.