The case is now before the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal, where the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) argued this week that the behaviour, if proven, would amount to serious misconduct.
All allegations are denied by the man.
The names and identifying details of the teen, teacher and witnesses are suppressed on an interim basis.
CAC lawyer Milan Djurich told the tribunal in Auckland that the teacher knew the boy’s age and his intoxication during the sexual act.
The accusations would reflect on his ability to teach and may bring the profession into disrepute, he said.
The teen said he made a police report in October 2021 after he told his mother about the incident.
No criminal charges were laid by police.
A video of his police interview later that month was played to the tribunal.
In it, he detailed how the teacher approached him from behind just after midnight at the festival.
Around 100 to 200 people were surrounding a fire on January 1 when, while grabbing his chest and bottom, the teacher and the boy “made out”.
The teacherthen reached around and performed the sex acton the boy.
The teacher allegedly then invited the boy back to his caravan to take MDMA and have sex, and began walking back before two strangers who witnessed the incident asked the boy if he was okay.
He said he spent time with the two girls before going to sleep in his tent.
The complainant alleged he was sexually assaulted in a busy area of a New Year’s festival.
He alleged the teacher was high on MDMA as he had dilated pupils and was in a euphoric state.
The teen said he had been drinking since the morning at the festival and had also smoked cannabis.
He was too intoxicated to have consented, he said.
During the interview, the boy said he did not say no to the activity explicitly but used his body language to suggest he did not consent.
Previous alleged sexual assaults he was the victim of had also conditioned him to think the behaviour was normal, he said, which is why he did not show or voice explicit rejection.
The man’s lawyer, Hannah Stuart, asked whether differences in the teen’s accounts in his police interview, brief of evidence, and what he told friends and family showed he embellished or fabricated details.
During cross-examination, Stuart questioned the teen on whether he reconstructed the events during the police interview almost two years after the alleged incident with inaccurate and “made-up” details.
The lawyer asked how his recollection of the activity could be trusted if he admitted to having a bad memory during the police interview, where the teen said he had a memory “like a goldfish” and that it was bad due to cannabis use.
Stuart pushed himon his level of intoxication, questioning if his state could hinder the reliability of his testimony.
She suggested that, as he revealed new details hours into their police interview after he was asked multiple times to relay the events, he was making up details as he went along.
He responded that while he could not remember some details, he remembered the traumatic incidents clearly.
Questioned why he went to the police more than a year after the alleged incident, the teen said his normalisation to sexual assault meant he did not realise what happened was a crime until later.
Stuart suggested that the teen went up to her client, pushed his bum into him, kissed him and told him he “liked bears”, a term for an older, large and hairy homosexual man.
The teacher replied, “No, you don’t. Where is your mother?”, told him to go away and never invited the teen to his van, Stuart said.
That version of events was not accepted by the teen.
“I’m telling what happened, I’m telling the truth.”
The teen’s friend told the tribunal that she witnessed the alleged sexual act.
She did not intervene at the time because, in her youth, she did not know the best way to act in a distressing situation, she said.
Police records show they had spoken to her over the phone about the incident during their investigation, and she told them she had not witnessed it.
The friend said she cannot recall the phone call, but admitted after questioning by Stuart that if she told the police she did not see the alleged act, it was a lie.
The teen and his friend both gave evidence that he told her and another friend at the festival not to talk to the police because he did not want to get them involved.
She also remembered the teacher had purchased him cigarettes, she said.
‘Figment of your imagination’
The tribunal heard that the teen messaged the teacher on multiple occasions after the alleged assault.
On January 2, he sent a message apologising for the situation.
Stuart suggested it was because he created the uncomfortable situation for her client, while the teacher said he thought he had done something wrong at the time but later realised that was not the case.
In February 2022, the teen sent multiple messages asking to speak to the teacher and requesting that he stop mistreating his mother.
In one message, he asked the man t for $50, which the teen said was intended to be support for what had happened to him.
Texts were also sent to the teacher’s brother asking to speak to the teacher.
The tribunal heard in the teen’s police interview that the man was allegedly mistreating his mother.
The teen said his mum was saying she hated him.
Stuart asked whether he wanted to “pile on the drama” of her situation to get sympathy from her by making the allegation.
“The account [of the incident] was a figment of your imagination that you’ve given to hurt someone who was bullying your mother?”
The teen rejected that framing; he said the difficulty of reliving trauma and seeing how it affects those around you would not be worth any sympathy.
Early departure
Giving evidence, the teen’s mother said he invited the teacher to the festival because she considered him a friend of the family.
She told the tribunal she did not witness the alleged assault or any unusual interactions between the two, but she thought it was strange that he had left early in the morning on New Year’s Day.
Her thoughts went to him departing because something embarrassing had happened, she said.
When her son told her about the alleged incident in September 2021, the mother first contacted the teachers’ union and Teaching Council before she informed police.
Stuart questioned why she would go to the two organisations before the police. She replied that she was under stress and took the steps she thought were right.
The teacher’s partner told the tribunal he attended the festival from December 28-30 but did not stay the whole time due to work commitments.
He said that his partner had always planned to leave early on January 1, as they were going to spend time together elsewhere, which is why he left early.
Questioned under cross-examination by Djurich, he accepted that he would not know what his partner could have done in moments when they were not together if he had not been told about them.
The partner said they would have four to six drinks a night.
When questioned about a picture of their chilly bin at the festival which had more than 20 beers and two bottles of wine in it, he accepted that during New Year’s people drink more than their usual amount.
His partner could have brought back some of the drinks, he said.
Several long-term friends and colleagues of the teacher gave evidence that he was a person of good moral character, had control over his alcohol consumption, never drank in excess, disliked smoking and never talked about or used illicit drugs.
The teacher did not give evidence at the hearing.
The tribunal reserved its decision for a later date.