In 2012, Glenn Roderick Holland became one of the first New Zealanders to be convicted of committing a crime against children overseas. Photo / NZ Herald
A serial paedophile who has abused children around the world and was subject to an intensive supervision order is back in prison after trying to gather a group of young girls to appear in a seedy music video.
Glenn Roderick Holland has a history of sex offending and possessing child pornography dating back to 1988.
In 2012, he became one of the first New Zealanders to be convicted here of committing a crime against children overseas.
He was jailed for taking photographs in a Moscow apartment of a 7-year-old girl in a sexual position with a man.
The court heard at the time that Holland had travelled widely and built a career out of taking sexually provocative pictures of young girls, taking advantage of lax child protection laws in some European countries including Russia and Germany.
He was sentenced in 1988 to two years' jail in Australia for sexually assaulting a young girl he had with him for a photographic modelling assignment.
He returned to New Zealand in 1994, and four years later an Auckland judge ruled he did not cross a legal line in taking pictures of two young sisters wearing suspenders, underwear and showing a breast through a flimsy garment.
In February 2016 a judge imposed a 10-year extended supervision order on Holland, which meant he would be monitored around the clock.
A condition of that order was that Holland must not engage in any employment, training, volunteer work or business ventures without prior written approval.
He was banned from accessing the internet or possessing any device capable of accessing the web or storing, accessing or distributing images.
Last year he was charged with breaching both of those conditions when he set about developing a venture that involved establishing a pop group made up of teenage girls who would appear in a music video.
When authorities started investigating him for that - they found he had two phones and devices capable of storing images and videos.
Roderick initially denied all the offending but after a trial before Judge Dale Clarkson he was convicted on five charges of failing to comply with the conditions of the supervision order.
Late last year Holland was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
An interim suppression order prohibiting Holland's name being published also lapsed.
The Herald has this week been granted access to Judge Clarkson's sentencing notes, which, alongside the evidence presented at trial, reveal the full extent of Holland's bizarre business plan.
At the trial Holland disputed all his previous convictions, claiming the child porn he was involved with was artistic and people were "perfectly happy" with his actions.
He also claimed he was a much sought after figure in the music industry and was responsible for forming 1970s US band the Runaways, which featured Joan Jett.
Further, he stated that he was a driving force behind Kiwi acts OMC, The Mockers and Satellite Spies - though he was "unlikely to be seen in any credits" because he was "not interested in publicity so much".
The court heard that Holland's big dream was to form a new girl band that would become a global sensation.
The group would not sing - their music would be recorded by one of the singers from The Bangles, though he would not disclose which one - but they would appear in the music videos.
The group would be called Ragdoll.
Holland contacted an associate in Russia outlining the Ragdoll project and including details of their first music video.
The girls were to be filmed partially naked on a beach "as the moon came up" and using a soft-focus lens.
They would wear "pretty tailor-made" outfits which Holland referred to in court as "honey clothes".
They would get out of the sea and squeeze water out of their hair, put dry clothes on and "then get a small bottle of cheap perfume out and squirt it into panties".
Among the girls he was seeking was one aged 12-13 and another 14-5 with "long blonde hair" for an "ideal spread" in the video.
They would have initial head shots taken, then later nudes would be shot as they were the "most important need".
He said no one would appear full naked in the video but nude stills were a necessity.
"The girls on the beach aren't the band," he told the court.
"Viewers of the video will think they are connected to the music."
After outlining the project to his associate, Holland's next move was placing an advertisement in the Herald seeking $350,000 from investors.
And he approached the mother of an 11-year-old girl at an Auckland mall "with the intention of recruiting her for the group".
She apparently fit his brief for a "young-looking small girl with small breasts, narrow hips, blonde blue eyes".
He told the court that most of the group would come from Russia but as they would not speak English he needed a local girl to help them out.
Holland admitted all of the facts around the project, telling Judge Clarkson: "It's a project that's worth doing, deserves to be done and I want to do it."
However, the sex offender denied that he was engaging in any actual business - rather he was simply lining things up and making contacts so that once his supervision order was "revoked" he was free to start actual work on the Ragdoll project.
He said he did not seek permission to do the project while the order was in place as "I'd never get it".
But he was happy to take the preliminary steps.
Crown prosecutor Kirsten Lummis said Holland was "making up" a "load of codswallop" and his breaches were patently clear.
Judge Clarkson agreed.
At sentencing she said Holland had breached the order five times already and had been assessed as being a "high risk" of harm to the public.
It was also likely he would reoffend given his "lack of insight and lack of consideration for the impact (his) beliefs and actions will have on the under-16 age group".
"You do not ... have any acceptance of wrongdoing," Judge Clarkson said.
"You consider that you have not done anything that is particularly objectionable and you regard your interests as in the nature of art rather than potentially abusive of children."
As a result the only appropriate penalty was prison.
"The probation officer confirms ... that you are still keen on your project and intend to continue with it after the extended supervision order is no longer in force," the judge revealed.
"The probation officer says that you intend taking nude photographs of girls for promotional purposes, if you were able to pursue the project."
Judge Clarkson said given Holland's views, rehabilitation and promoting a sense of responsibility were "difficult" in sentencing.
"The real focus of the court in imposing sentence, as well as recognising the seriousness of the offending ... is protection of the community.
"That has to be uppermost in my mind."
She said aggravating factors of the offending were the nature of Holland's plan, which was "proposing to undertake a venture which will involve sexual offending against children and child pornography".
"It goes to the heart of what your ESO and its specific conditions were intended to prevent," she said.
"The risk to the public, in that you were approaching mothers of daughters ... is significant and put young girls in danger of being exploited.
"Premeditation is another aggravating feature of the offending ... the details of your planning were intricate and there had been clearly many hours of thought and effort on your part."
Judge Clarkson said Holland was "fortunate" no one been subjected to any actual physical offending.
She jailed him for 18 months for participating in a business and 12 months for the other breaches.
The 12-month sentences are to be served concurrently - but cumulatively to the 18-month penalty - meaning he is behind bars for 30 months in total.
If you have concerns about the immediate safety of a child, call 111.
Alternatively contact your local police station - click her for a list.
Or, contact Oranga Tamariki, Ministry for Children on 0508 326 459 for advice or click here to visit the agency's website for more information.
They allege the Crown ignored Treaty obligations by not engaging with them.