In court, one of the men appeared to turn on the other after blaming him for the pair’s predicament, telling a pre-sentence report writer, “It’s because of him that we have been charged.”
Their lawyers tried to keep the pair out of jail but Judge Russell Walker dismissed the submission and sent them to prison, one for four years and the other for four years and three months, on charges of possession of objectionable material, a representative charge of distributing objectionable material and a charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12.
“The offending against a [relative] is the ultimate betrayal of trust,” Judge Walker told the men today.
“You were trusted to have the full-time care of him and you abused that trust in the most callous way.
“He was entitled to be protected by you but instead he became the focus of your sexual desire which you shared with others with a similar desire.”
‘Can I get a glimpse of that . . .’
The two men, who NZME will name as A and B, moved to the South Island from the North Island after being charged.
The age of A’s victims ranged from 3 months to 15 years and he was found with and distributed a total of 48 images and videos.
He sent 10 images, ranging in age from babies to 9-year-olds, to an associate – including one of a relative who was 12 weeks old.
A also took a photo of himself holding his penis in front of the naked boy, and took a photo of the relative’s penis when visiting a park.
The associate replied, “Would I be able to see [victim’s] diddle one day discreetly?”
A replied, “Guess so”.
He began talking with another person on WhatsApp and sent them an earlier photo of his relative, before agreeing to arrange for that associate to come to his house to see the boy.
A and the associate exchanged explicit texts with the associate asking if he could “touch” the victim and “get a glimpse of that diddle”.
When questioned, A said he only had images on his phone because they had automatically saved from the WhatsApp conversations and he had not tried to leak them.
‘yng fun’
As for the second man, B, his cellphone was seized and 370 images and video files were found in a subfolder dubbed, “yng fun”.
He distributed 109 of those files, which depicted children aged between 1 and 18 years, to six different people over WhatsApp and two account holders to a website.
B also discussed sexual fantasies with his associates that included penetrative activities with children and babies, “which can only be described as extreme and disturbing”, Judge Walker said.
B’s associate also helped him create an online storage account on a website and shared with him numerous links to child exploitation material.
When in the spa pool naked with the young relative he took four photos of the boy’s naked buttocks before sharing them with an associate on a web-based chat group.
He then began talking to an associate who asked if he could visit and “sexually abuse” the boy.
“The defendant indicated in response that if [A wasn’t home] he probably would have agreed,” the judge said. “There was then further explicit discussions about what might occur.”
B also discussed having “fantasies” about incest, strangulation to near death, bestiality, and raping children and babies.
When he was questioned, B made full admissions to accessing, downloading, and sharing child exploitation material on WhatsApp and Telegram and chatting with other people about “his fantasies to engage in sexual activities with prepubescent children”.
‘Sexual interest in children’
Crown solicitor Amy Alcock described the offending as “highly premeditated” but the men offended against a young relative who was in their full-time care.
A hadn’t taken any responsibility for his offending and blamed B for being in court, stating, “It’s because of him that we have been charged.”
Alcock said: “This is concerning given the nature of the offending and it appears there are no real prospects of rehabilitation.”
Alcock took exception to B’s comments in a report that the offending wasn’t sexually motivated and he’d never masturbated to the images.
“This offending couldn’t be for any other purpose than for a sexual interest in children.”
‘The outcome may be one he doesn’t want’
Gerard Walsh, counsel for A, said discussions with the Crown about the offending had resulted in several other charges being withdrawn, and while his client had a criminal history he had none for this type of offending.
His most recent brush with the law, from last year, was for drink-driving.
A admitted he had an alcohol problem and it was something he wanted to sort out, Walsh said.
He urged the judge to take a starting point of three to three-and-a-half years in jail and come to an end term of home detention.
As for B’s comments to probation, counsel Melissa James said it was up to the court to make anything of that comment but her client did accept the offending because he had pleaded guilty to it.
“[I have] no instructions to resile from that and he is here, turned up with bail, pending sentence knowing that the outcome may be one that he does not want.”
B had not breached his bail and asked for credit for that, along with his time on bail, and previous good character.
“Up until [this offending] I can say that there was no prior misconduct of any kind to be before the authorities,” James said of B. She also asked the judge to reach a home detention sentence.
‘He was cruelly used’
Judge Walker said A’s comment to a pre-sentence report writer that photos of his relative were not for sharing was contradictory to what he had pleaded guilty to.
“You clearly wanted to abuse him. In short, the report clearly indicates you are in denial.”
The judge told the men the child in their care was “plainly vulnerable, and would have had no idea that he was being cruelly used in the way he was”.
“Your actions continue to fuel what is an abhorrent demand for this material.”
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for nine years and has been a journalist for 20.
