Charlotte was sexually abused when she was young. As an adult she decided to prosecute her abuser. Victim Support were with her every step of the way.
Brian Hamilton, 72, was sentenced to eight years and six months for a decade of child sexual abuse.
Judge Mary-Beth Sharp denied most sentence reduction requests, citing Hamilton’s lack of remorse and continued denial.
His now-adult victim confronted him in court, highlighting the lasting impact on her life.
WARNING: This story contains details of sexual abuse
A 72-year-old retired businessman with no previous record shook his head defiantly as a judge in the Auckland District Court outlined the decade of sexual abuse and torment he inflicted on a young girl.
It didn’tgo over well.
“I note that he is shaking his head, which is consistent with his attitude at trial,” Judge Mary-Beth Sharp said as she paused to look over at the courtroom dock where Brian Hamilton was seated next to two guards.
“He continues to deny the nuts and bolts of these charges despite having pleaded guilty,” Judge Sharp said, reiterating that she believed the victim “without any hesitation” before resuming the explicit, disturbing account of his crimes.
Brian Hamilton, 72, was sentenced in the Auckland District Court for the decade-long historic sexual abuse of a girl who was first targeted at age 3. Photo / Alex Burton
“It concerns me that he continues to downplay and indeed in some circumstances to justify [the crimes]. It exposes true paedophilia instincts.”
The judge would later deny Hamilton’s request for sentence reductions based on remorse, partial guilty pleas and rehabilitation efforts.
“Discount for remorse should be for extraordinary remorse, and I certainly don’t see a sign of that from Mr Hamilton,” she explained.
The Morningside resident was charged with multiple counts of historical abuse in February 2023. It was a year after his victim, now an adult, first approached police in Australia to say she had been targeted by him between the ages of 3 and 13 when she was living in Auckland.
He had been trusted by the girl’s family and was a frequent caregiver in the 1990s.
The case was referred to investigators in New Zealand, resulting in a trial in November with some odd twists.
He pleaded guilty on four charges on the morning his trial was set to begin, but denied six others, even though all the allegations were closely related.
Because of the split plea, the victim had to travel from Australia to give evidence.
Many of the charges were representative, meaning they covered a large span of years. One tranche, however, involved sexual abuse that occurred on a specific day 25 years ago when the victim’s mother was in hospital recovering from surgery. The jury was given an exact date because it occurred the day after Hamilton returned to Auckland from a business trip to the United States, of which there was a record.
One contested charge was dropped mid-trial, but another charge was added after Hamilton voluntarily described a bathtub scene with the victim disturbing enough that the judge called for a break, suggesting outside earshot of the jury that the Crown might want to consider a new charge based on the admission. The Crown did, and Hamilton pleaded guilty to that too.
The jury found him guilty on all remaining charges.
“I find, and I suspect the jury did too, that overall he did not necessarily consider his behaviour with [the victim] was anything other than educative,” the judge noted at sentencing. “He sought to downplay and excuse his behaviour because truly, he did not see and understand it was inappropriate, improper and illegal.
“His lack of empathy and understanding for his victim was truly appalling. I’m not at all sure anything much has changed in that regard.”
In an emotional statement to the court, Hamilton’s victim described how he stole her childhood and damaged her adult relationships and self-confidence. She described struggling to keep a steady job all her adult life because there were days when her depression was so crippling she couldn’t get out of bed.
“This means ... I do not have a successful career, I do not own my own home, I have not travelled and, in short, I have not lived my life,” she said.
“But Brian has.”
But, “despite the ugliness that Brian inflicted”, she has found love in her family and her son, she said.
“I am here today to heal that scared, lonely and sad little girl who was traumatised by Brian Hamilton and had no voice,” she said through tears.
Outside court, she and her supporters said they wanted Hamilton’s prosecution reported for several reasons, including to spread awareness to victims that it’s never too late to come forward and to show that police will diligently pursue a case even if the accuser is overseas.
After the victim impact statement concluded, Judge Sharp praised the victim as credible, reliable and brave. Her victim impact statement, the judge said, “could not possibly leave anybody listening unmoved”.
“I hope he heard with a sense of shame and contrition what [she] said so bravely to the court.”
‘Limited insight’
Because of a law change in the mid-1990s, Hamilton faced up to 20 years' imprisonment on some charges, but a maximum sentence of 10 years for some of his earlier offending.
Crown prosecutors Harrison Bell and Faisal Ganchi sought a starting point of nine to 10 years' imprisonment, conceding he should probably be allowed a single discount of 5% for previous good character due to his lack of previous convictions.
Lawyer Bridget Lawler sought a starting point of seven years, with 15% in discounts, including prior good character, remorse and efforts at rehabilitation. She also sought a discount for his age, arguing prison would be more difficult for him than for younger offenders.
Hamilton had taken courses aimed at rehabilitating people charged with sexual offending against children, Lawler said. That denoted a level of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, she said, explaining the programme “requires some acknowledgment of fault” before accepting a participant.
The judge denied Hamilton’s request for sentence reductions based on remorse, partial guilty pleas and rehabilitation efforts. Photo / Alex Burton
Lawler also noted her client has been assessed in a psychological report as being at low risk of reoffending. The judge accepted the report’s finding, but said she suspected it was mainly because Hamilton was likely to be in jail throughout his 70s.
“The harm to her is huge,” the judge said of the victim while assessing what sentence to impose. “It’s had a very significant impact on her and must be an aggravating factor of this offending.”
Hamilton put his head in his hands and shook his head in apparent disagreement several times during the judge’s description of the abuse, but he never found a use for a handkerchief that he waved as he was led into the dock from custody.
He had been in jail, awaiting sentencing, since the conclusion of his trial last year.
The judge settled on a sentence of eight years and six months' imprisonment, allowing the 5% good character discount, but rejecting all other requests. She said she “grappled” with whether to allow even that discount, but opted in the end to allow it because both sides were in agreement.
She acknowledged his completion of the rehabilitation programme, but voiced doubts about how effective it would have been for him.
“He clearly continues to display limited insight into his offending,” the judge said.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Jaime Lyth is a multimedia journalist for the New Zealand Herald focusing on crime and breaking news. Lyth began working under the NZ Herald masthead in 2021 as a reporter for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
