Auckland University legal academic ‘sick to the stomach’ over sexual assault investigation

An investigation into sexual assault, bullying and harassment claims against a university professor left a colleague “sick to the stomach” over the alleged inadequacy of the process.

Chemistry professor Jonathan Sperry left his role at the University of Auckland after an investigation last year found he had bullied and harassed students, and practiced poor laboratory health and safety management.

Sperry was accused of a 2019 sexual assault on an international student. Abbie* told RNZ she told a senior leader about the alleged assault at the time, but it was only formally investigated when she raised it as part of a separate investigation last year. Sperry denied the allegations and would not be interviewed by RNZ.

The investigation, in response to at least six people making allegations against Sperry, was led by two senior academics appointed by the vice-chancellor, supported by staff from the human resources department. It concluded it was “more likely than not” Abbie was bullied and harassed by Sperry, but “there is not enough concrete evidence to conclude that violent and sexually harmful behaviour occurred”.

Dr Carrie Leonetti, director of the Centre for Human Rights Law, Policy and Practice at the university, told RNZ she believed the investigators were ill-equipped and ill-advised.

Leonetti said she had spent her entire academic career studying how institutions and systems treat victims, and felt the need to speak out after learning how the university handled complaints laid by an international exchange student.

“While individual episodes of abuse can traumatise people, it’s actually the larger institutional responses that often do the most damage,” she said.

“I’m just so concerned about institutional betrayal.”

She understood Abbie had gone back to her home institution to support her through the trauma she’d experienced at the University of Auckland.

“It just makes me sick to the stomach to think, frankly, that my employer played any role in that trauma.”

Leonetti, who teaches evidence law, said she was shocked the investigators concluded they could not say the student was assaulted based on evidence available to them.

The alleged assault

Abbie’s allegations against Sperry were first reported by the New Zealand Herald earlier this year.

Abbie told RNZ Sperry began belittling her soon after she arrived at the university.

Words like “f… idiot, useless p…y, lousy lay, stupid bitch, pathetic, waste of space” were used against her during their meetings, she claimed.

Three months into her exchange, the harassment turned sexual, Abbie claimed.

One evening, Sperry asked her to join him in his office to talk about a new approach to an experiment.

He locked the door after she entered and started berating and belittling her, she claimed.

He put his hand on her hip, touched her breasts and ripped her jeans, she claimed. A noise down the corridor distracted him, she said, allowing her to escape into the cold night.

“I didn’t have my keys. I didn’t have anything. I just had my phone. I left my wallet behind, my computer, literally everything and in my bag, even my passport.”

What happened after Abbie’s report

The next day, Abbie said she spoke with managers at the university.

Emails seen by RNZ suggest managers spoke with both Sperry and Abbie about their interactions.

“While many events were common to both versions of her internship, the explanations and interpretations were very different,” a manager wrote at the time.

A “Wellbeing Support” team was being set up for research students, which would be led by Sperry and another academic, the manager stated. In an undated Mental Wellbeing brochure, Jonathan Sperry was named as an advisor for the School of Chemical Sciences.

The manager wrote “while it is unfortunate” the best outcome was for Abbie to return to her home institution and “investigate alternative internship options from there”.

Abbie cut her placement short and left New Zealand soon after the alleged assault in 2019.

She contacted the university last year after hearing about the investigation into Sperry.

The investigators found Abbie a credible witness “whose personality did not in any way resemble Professor Sperry’s description of her”.

Staff from Abbie’s home institution told them she had reported a distressing experience “of a sexual nature” during her exchange.

The investigators also said Sperry’s extensive rebuttal was “often speculative” and “does not and cannot prove that the alleged physical and sexual assault did not happen”. It said Sperry was experiencing “frustrations” that “could have led him to behave” in bullying and harassing ways.

The report said a lawyer for Sperry made allegations that the university’s investigation promoted collusion and bias. The investigators rejected these claims.

‘Onus is on the university, not the complainant’

Abbie says she is not satisfied with either the process, or the outcome of the investigation.

“They [the investigators] said, you need to provide the evidence, you need to tell us who we’re supposed to talk to. The onus was very much on me the whole way through.

“Which to some extent I get, but also, they should be doing their own internal investigations and looking at what has been said and sent.”

Abbie said the investigation failed to hold others accountable.

“These people have children of our age, they have people that they love, and every time that you turn a blind eye on these things, this could very well be your loved one. Why would you hide the truth? Why would you just pretend that it hasn’t happened? Because it produces an uncomfortable conversation? One uncomfortable conversation for you is the trauma of many, many people.”

Leonetti wants the university to conduct an external review into its policies and procedures, apologise to victims of Sperry, and publicly reassure they will not retaliate against whistleblowers.

“I would make it very clear that the onus is on the university to prove the misconduct, not on the complainant, not on the victim.”

While the university has a policy on harmful sexual behaviour, the investigation procedure for sexual misconduct is the same as “for stealing copy paper out of the copy room”.

“And I think that’s really inappropriate,” Leonetti said.

University responds

The University of Auckland did not address a series of questions from RNZ, instead issuing a general statement.

“The University does not comment on the specifics of any individual employment investigations.

“Speaking generally, any staff assisting in investigations do so under the Staff Complaints process and the guidelines of the Academic Staff Disciplinary Procedures.

“Senior and experienced staff are selected for these roles and are fully briefed on all relevant policies. They are supported by, and work alongside, an experienced HR Advisory team member.

“The University has robust policies, procedures and guidelines that support the appropriate handling of investigations, including into matters involving bullying, harassment or discrimination, with support available for complainants.”

* Not her real name

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.