Man's offending against child catches up with him 40 years later

Stock image

A man has been jailed for child sex offences he first committed as a teenager in the early 1980s.

Now in his late 50s, the man cannot be named because it would risk identifying the victim, whose details are automatically protected by law.

She was essentially his niece.

At a non-jury trial in Gisborne District Court earlier this year, Judge Warren Cathcart found the man guilty of doing three indecencies on the girl, who was 13 years younger than him — two when she under 12 years old, the other when she was aged under 16.

The first offence involved the man digitally penetrating her when she was only three or four years old.

When she was six or seven, the man rubbed the girl’s upper thigh and made sexually suggestive comments.

Later — when she was 12 — he again rubbed her thigh in an inappropriate way.

At the man’s recent sentencing in the court, Judge Cathcart imposed a prison term of 16 months but granted leave to apply for home detention.

The judge said he would have imposed the electronically monitored option immediately if the man had a suitable address available.

In sentencing, the judge had to consider what the law was during the 1980s.

The most serious element of the offending — the digital penetration — would now be dealt with by way of a sexual connection charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

However, in the 1980s that offending was charged as being an indecent assault of a female under 12, which carried a maximum of just 10 years.

The court also had to take into account the man’s youth at the time, which was a major mitigating factor.

Because of the custodial sentence imposed (regardless of the leave to apply for home detention) and due to the fact, the man was aged over 18 by the time of the last offence, it was mandatory for him to be added to the national child sex offender register.

At the outset of his trial, the man said he did not recognise the court’s jurisdiction and didn’t want any legal representation.

However, as the hearing progressed, he made increasing use of counsel Leighvi Maynard’s services.

Mr Maynard was appointed by the court at standby counsel.

He was also appointed to prepare sentencing submissions for the man.