Matthew Elliot was convicted of raping a teenage girl when he was 18. Photo / George Heard
The court heard that in 2005, Elliot plied the young woman with alcohol before trapping her in a bedroom, pinning her down and assaulting her while she continuously screamed, told him “no” and tried to fight him off.
Elliot denied a charge of rape but was found guilty by a jury.
At sentencing, Judge Mark Callaghan said during a phone call before trial Elliot apologised “a number of times” for the rape.
However, his defence in court was that it “never happened”.
Elliot admitted kissing the teen but denied any further assault and proffered his apology was for “the kissing aspect and supplying wine”.
“That explanation was rejected by the jury,” said Judge Callaghan.
He described the rape as “brutal” and “forceful” and said Elliot had shown no remorse.
Elliot appealed his sentence and conviction. A decision is pending.
Elliot was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court. Photo / George Heard
This week, he was released on parole, and the survivor was told he still denied the offending and had not participated in any rehabilitation programmes in prison.
“Why the hell are they letting this guy out?” she said.
“I am really shocked they are letting a sex offender out without doing any kind of programme, and there is nothing to indicate he has done any sort of rehabilitation.”
The Parole Board refused to provide its decision to the Herald.
“Given that Mr Elliot has appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, the board’s decision is withheld under section 6(c) of the Official Information Act, that is, prejudice to the maintenance of the law in relation to the right to a fair trial,” the board said.
The victim provided the details she had been given as to why Elliot was being released early.
“He’s not done and doesn’t have to do a sex offender course. I’m furious and shocked ... he’s getting out on parole after only one-and-a-half years.”
Elliot’s statutory prison release date is December 27, 2028.
He became eligible for parole this month and appeared before the board on April 10.
“Mr Elliot’s defence was that while he plied a friend of a friend, the young woman in question, with some alcohol and they then started kissing and fondling, no more happened and there was certainly no sexual connection between them,” said board panel convenor Judge Gus Andrée Wiltens.
“Unfortunately, that was not believed insofar as he is concerned, and he was convicted.
“He has appealed his conviction. That matter was heard before the Court of Appeal in November of last year. A decision has yet to come out.”
Matthew Elliot was arrested and charged many years after the rape. His victim was too scared to report the assault for many years. Photo / 123rf
The board heard Elliot was a minimum-security prisoner and had been assessed as being of “average risk of reoffending”.
“He was waitlisted for the [medium intensity child sex offender programme]; however, because the appeal was filed, he was unable to commence that,” said Judge Wiltens.
“He was also unable to get off that waitlist until he saw a psychologist and he was unable to see a psychologist until the appeal has been completed.
“The situation was really that he is in a very difficult position. He has complied with all the requirements that the Corrections officers have put on him, and his behaviour in custody has been described as exemplary.”
The board heard Elliot had support in the community, a suitable address to be released to and had been offered a job.
“Mr Elliot has obtained his own clinical psychologist’s report which identifies him as being of low risk of reoffending,” said Judge Wiltens.
“It is recorded that there is no obvious need for any offence-related treatment.”
The judge said it was also “important to note” that Elliot had no convictions before or after the rape.
“We have come to the conclusion, despite the circumstances, that Mr Elliot no longer poses an undue risk to the community and that what is proposed in terms of his release proposal is adequate to further control him in the community,” he ruled.
“We are therefore prepared to grant him parole. He can be released on 29 April, subject to the conditions which are to apply through to his sentence release date of 27 December 2028.”
Judge Wiltens said the board saw no need for a monitoring hearing or electronic monitoring.
Elliot’s release conditions include telling a Probation officer, at the earliest opportunity, details of any intimate relationship that commences, resumes or terminates.
And he is not to have any direct or indirect contact or association with anyone under 16 unless he has written permission from his Probation officer, or is under the supervision of an adult approved in writing by his Probation officer.
The survivor was furious to find out Elliot would be released without completing any rehab programmes. Photo / EyeEm
The survivor told the Herald she did not want Elliot locked up any longer than he needed to be. But she was appalled that he was released now.
“I feel like I’m a pretty reasonable person, I don’t expect him to rot in prison for the rest of his life,” she said.
“But as far as I can see, he’s done no rehab. He’s not investigated his own beliefs around consent and he is still maintaining his innocence, so still not taking accountability.
“Just own your stuff, take accountability and responsibility, go to therapy, do the work,” she said.
She acknowledged Elliot’s appeal but said until a decision was made he remained a convicted rapist.
“And he should be treated as such,” she said.
“I really, really don’t understand how sex offenders can be released without even doing things to address the offending.
“I hoped being released into the community would mean he would at least have more access to rehabilitation or treatment but he’s not having to do any courses or programmes that are specific to his offending.”
She alerted the Herald to Elliot’s parole because she felt that the justice system had failed her.
“All I want as a victim is to know that he is not going to hurt other people, especially young girls,” she said.
“Sex offenders should be mandated to do a sex offender programme to face the harm they have caused and really challenge them to investigate their values and beliefs.
“Making it voluntary isn’t going to change our horrific sexual violence epidemic in New Zealand.”
Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based 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.
