She was exposed to the risk of infections and unwanted pregnancy.
“Some testing for sexually transmissible infections requires a long waiting period and retesting which was stressful,” she said.
“I had to take antibiotics to prevent possible infections which caused my immune system to suffer. I had to lie there while medical personnel took samples from my cervix and vagina – this was uncomfortable and humiliating.”
Peter Stevens. Photo / Facebook
After the assault, she felt “nauseated, tense and shaky, emotional”.
“It is hard to put into words, the full emotional effects of sexual violation,” the woman said.
“It is a visceral feeling of shame and disgust that feels very heavy and never seems to leave …
I have suffered from PTSD. The initial few days were particularly difficult.”
She suffers nightmares and anxiety and has been diagnosed with PTSD.
“When I see people who look like Mr Stevens, this causes my heart to race and I become short of breath,” she said.
“This anxiety has prevented me from going for walks outside my home unless I’m with someone, I have a constant shadow in my life.
“I have been unable to talk to some of my close support people about what happened because of the circumstances by which Mr Stevens and I met. And this has made me feel isolated and annoyed.
“The process of going to trial has brought up a lot of emotional distress … I am now having to seek extra psychological support.”
She has been unable to return to sex work – or any other work – and has struggled with her studies.
“The way I was treated by Mr Stevens has made my life going forward much more difficult,” she said.
“I had to change the course of my life because of it.
“Not only were my choices taken away during my time with Mr Stevens, but they continue to be taken away as I deal with the ongoing effects of his actions.”
The woman turned to Stevens for the final line of her statement.
Convicted rapist Peter Stevens. Photo / Anna Leask
Crown prosecutor Shawn McManus said the offending was premeditated.
“Not a high degree of premeditation, but he could have been under no illusion that what he was doing was wrong,” she said.
“He purposely and deliberately removed the condom.
“[The victim] had been very adamant from the outset … he ejaculated into her without consent and that not only had implications in terms of her dignity but also in terms of being exposed to potential harm.”
Judge Savage said the offending against the woman was serious.
“Natural services weren’t on offer. Your lawyer describes your persistence with requesting natural services as something that was ‘foolish’ … it wasn’t foolish, it was something rather more sinister than that.
“I am not in a position to say that I am confident that you went there with the intention of things playing out the way that they did – but this was something you wanted … it was to a degree opportunistic, but it was intentional when it happened.”
Stevens’ lawyer, Craig Ruane, said the offending was borne out of a pornography addiction.
He said Stevens had sought counselling for that. He was remorseful and had written an apology letter to the woman.
Since the rape, Stevens had lost his home and business.
“He really has ruined his life,” Ruane said.
“He is at an age where, by the time he gets out of prison he’ll have to start from scratch.”
Judge Savage said he saw “no genuine remorse” and it was important to denounce Stevens’ conduct and deter other men from behaving the same way in future.
After he sentenced Stevens to prison he turned to the victim and thanked her for speaking at the hearing.
“The court has heard you,” he said.
“I hope this goes some way to restoring your mana.”
Judge Savage refused to grant Stevens’ last-minute application for name suppression.
He said having his name published would negatively impact his mother.
McManus opposed suppression, saying the evidence provided – a single letter from the woman’s doctor – did not establish the extreme hardship needed for suppression.
Judge Savage agreed, saying the reality of sexual offending was a degree of impact on the convicted person’s family.
He said there “was not even a sniff of appropriate grounds” for suppression and allowed Stevens’ name and photograph to be published.
The woman spoke to the Herald after sentencing.
She was relieved the ordeal was over and happy Stevens had been held to account.
She wanted other people – whether they were sex workers or not – to know that stealthing was a serious crime.
And she wanted to raise awareness so other victims knew they could come forward and report their assaults to police.
“Since it happened, there have been a few times where I have asked myself, ‘Was it actually that bad?’” she said.
“But it wouldn’t feel this way if it wasn’t that bad. It is as bad as you feel it is – don’t gaslight yourself out of it. It is what it is … rape.”
The victim wants people to be more aware of what stealthing is and how serious of a crime it is. Photo / 123rf
The woman said many people had never heard of stealthing – nor did they realise it was a high-level sexual violation.
“It is classed as rape … I would imagine there are a few other [victims] out there,” she said.
“I just hope that more people realise that it’s not okay that women – whether they are sex workers or not – [are not respected]. They need to be respected.
Now that the court process was over the woman had one focus.
“Healing. A lot of healing,” she said.
“For some reason I feel a little bit of sympathy for him because of the situation he’s got himself in – but he’s got a lot of work to do to sort himself out.
“I hope he does that. I hope he gets to a point in his life where he genuinely realises what he did was wrong.”
In 2021 the first person was convicted of stealthing by rape in New Zealand.
Jessie Campos raped a sex worker during a booking at a Lower Hutt brothel in 2018.
He was sentenced to three years and nine months for his offending.
At the time, Victoria University of Wellington’s Dr Samantha Keene told the Herald a conviction for the non-consensual removal of a condom during sex recognises that consent to sex with someone who is wearing a condom at the time it begins does not mean the consent remains when it is removed.
“Removing a condom during sex exposes the people involved in that activity to health risks, so sexually transmitted infections, HIV and in heterosexual encounters, unintentional pregnancies,” she said.
Keene said survivors and offenders might not be aware that non-consensually removing a condom during sex could be considered a form of sexual violence.
“A conviction for stealthing recognises the seriousness of this conduct for survivors, so it may encourage others to come forward and report their experiences.”
Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 18 years with a particular focus on family violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz
