A man’s family cried as they hugged and said their goodbyes in a courtroom, before he was taken away to begin a five-year jail sentence for sexually violating a child.
“F*** man, what the f*** is this s***,” one man said as they hugged at the back of a courtroom inside the Wellington District Court today.
Judge Peter Hobbs allowed the request for the man’s children, partner and friends to say goodbye after sentencing him on four charges of sexual offending against a girl between 2010 and 2013.
The court heard the man, then in his late 20s, rubbed his hand against a young girl’s genitals and told her not to tell anyone. At the time, the victim, a distant relative, was about 6.
During sentencing, the man, now 43, sat with a communications assistant. The court heard he had been diagnosed with dyslexia, ADHD and suffered a head injury in the past that left him unable to work.
His lawyer, Lucie Scott, said her client’s mental health problems meant he was conflict adverse and struggled to cope and handle stresses in his life.
After his parents separated when he was young, his father was jailed. When he had asked his mother where he was, she’d brought him model aeroplanes and when he continued to ask, she had threatened to put him in a home, she said.
She said the impact of prison on his own children, must be taken into account.
Scott said her client was willing to engage in all courses offered to him and had been assessed as being at a low risk of reoffending.
Turning to the question of name suppression, Scott submitted his children were at a pivotal age, conscious of what was in the news and on social media. They also shared his last name.
But Crown prosecutor Tim Bain said there was nothing in this case that differentiated this defendant from any other who had children and was facing a prison term. He argued the defence had not met the standard of extreme hardship required under the law.
The victim also opposed permanent name suppression, and if the application was granted, Bain said she would be constrained about what she could say about the case.
Judge: No suggestion you offended against your own children
But Judge Hobbs found the man’s children would suffer extreme hardship if his name were published.
Giving his reasons, the judge said there was no suggestion other victims may come forward should his name be published, the offending occurred a long time ago and there had been no offending since and the man had been assessed as being at a low risk of offending upon his release, he said.
Also, there was no suggestion he had offended against his own children, he said.
Judge Hobbs said he was satisfied the nature of the offending could be published without naming the man.
In sentencing, Judge Hobbs noted the victim was young and the offending had a significant impact on her life.
The judge said the man’s early life was characterised by a lack of limits and supervision, and later, he had sustained a head injury.
“I have no doubt with your neuro diversity issues that prison will be more difficult for you than it would be for others,” he said.
Judge Hobbs said he was also mindful of the impact prison would have on his children at a crucial time in their lives.
“There is a growing appreciation that the impact on children of offenders, particularly those in prison, needs to be acknowledged in an appropriate way,” he said.
On three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and a charge of indecent act on a child, he jailed the man for five years and three months.
- Catherine Hutton
