By Tracy Neal, Open Justice multimedia journalist
A shattered mother pleaded for a court’s leniency in sentencing her younger brother after he sexually abused his four nieces and nephews, one of whom was an infant.
The man, now in his 20s, has avoided going to prison but has been registered as a child sex offender.
He was 16 when the offending began during extended family gatherings. It continued after he moved into his sister and brother-in-law’s home and was looking after the children while their parents were out.
His sister said in a victim impact statement read to the Nelson District Court that the breach of trust blindsided the family, and as parents, they felt they had failed in their roles.
However, she said the family cared for him deeply and asked for leniency in sentencing so he could get the help he needed.
“This has been a nightmare year for all of us,” she said.
Judge Peter Hobbs credited the family for their compassion, insight and sympathy which was not always apparent in such circumstances.
The defendant’s sister said when the offending came to light last year, she and her husband asked him to be honest, and ultimately he was “driven by the need to do the right thing” to admit to police what he had done.
The man, who did not seek name suppression but was granted it to protect the victims and wider family, was sentenced to a maximum of 12 months of home detention for an indecent act on a child under 12 and four charges of sexual violation.
This was despite a firm push from the Crown that prison with a starting point of nine years was warranted.
Prosecutor Sophie O’Donaghue warned that the views of the victims should not overwhelm the sentencing process.
Defence lawyer Michael Vesty said the young man, himself a victim of sexual abuse, was a classic example of how hurt people hurt other people.
“He is a victim himself and is now an abuser,” Vesty said.
He said the defendant was one of a large family, which meant the ripple effect of his offending would be felt by “an extraordinary number of people”.
‘Nightmare’ year
Over the course of a year the defendant was at home with his parents where they lived in Tasman District when his sister and children came to visit.
While he was alone with his nephew, then aged 5, he exposed himself to the child.
The defendant later moved into his sister’s home and was left looking after two of the children, while his sister collected the other two from school.
While she was away he sexually violated a preschooler.
Another time, he performed an indecency with another preschooler while play fighting in the house, and the final act he confessed to involved the infant child.
While alone with the baby he picked her up and sexually violated her.
O’Donaghue said she was unable to find any other cases that involved sexual violation of a 1-year-old.
She said a plea for leniency was not unusual in cases of familial offending, and urged the court to treat it with caution.
Vesty said the allegations were built on admissions to the police and the defendant had a genuine wish to rehabilitate, backed by a specialist psychotherapist Burke Hunter, with whom the defendant has been undergoing intensive counselling.
Challenging circumstances
Judge Hobbs pointed out the challenges presented by the circumstances of the case, including the dispute between the Crown and defence over the sentencing starting point.
He said the summary of facts arose from admissions to the police but none of the young victims had provided statements or given evidence, and it was not yet known what impact the offending might have had on them.
Judge Hobbs said the Crown favoured prison, and had suggested it might be what the community expected from the court.
However, he was required to balance all relevant purposes and principles of sentencing to do justice relevant to the case that involved an “immature teen” who had been given the responsibility to look after children when he was ill-equipped to do so.
Judge Hobbs said some in the community would want a severe sentence and others would not take such an approach.
“There’s no better illustration of this than the approach taken by the victims’ parents,” Judge Hobbs said.
He said it was a serious case for all involved that deserved close and careful attention.
From a starting point of six and a half years in prison, Judge Hobbs awarded credits for the defendant’s guilty pleas, his youth, remorse and the counselling he had undergone so far to arrive at a point of 23 months in prison.
He accepted the Crown’s position but had to stand back and consider overall if the reduction was disproportionate to the gravity of the offending.
Judge Hobbs said a term of imprisonment would likely risk the defendant’s rehabilitation progress because counselling was unlikely to be available in prison, and that a sentence of home detention was sufficient to hold him to account.
He said registration as a child sex offender was therefore discretionary, and he was satisfied in this instance that he should be registered.
“Your offending was serious, you were young and the victims were very young.
“You yourself have been a victim of sexual offending.”
Judge Hobbs said that was not an excuse but it was relevant to sentencing.
