WARNING: This story refers to sexual assaults.
A Timaru teenager who admitted “depraved” and repeated sexual assaults on a young girl - the most “unusual” the sentencing judge has encountered in more than 20 years on the bench - has avoided prison.
Blake Ivan Miller, 19, pleaded guilty to “extremely serious” charges and was facing seven years behind bars.
But 75% of the sentence was cut due to his personal circumstances meaning he will serve just 10 months’ home detention.
And his name will not be added to the national sex offender register.
The victim’s parents are outraged and feel failed by the justice system.
They are also deeply concerned that Miller’s teenage sister is living at the house where he will serve his time - and other young girls are living close by.
They spoke out about the case to ensure parents and the wider community were aware of Miller’s offending.
Earlier this year Miller admitted three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of doing an indecent act on a child.
The former charge has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, the latter 10 years.
The victim’s mother was furious at the judge’s decision.
“I feel like he has got away with ruining our daughter’s life. How is she supposed to recover? She is having counselling but is far from the happy carefree child she once was.
“I just want justice for our daughter and having him do 10 months’ home detention is not justice - just a nice long holiday for him.”
She has been told there are no grounds for the Crown to appeal the sentence.
“We, and more importantly our 11-year-old daughter have not got justice,” she said.
“I am gutted but getting (the case) out there will be justice. At the moment nobody knows. So this will bring me peace of mind.
“The New Zealand courts have failed in our opinion.”
Miller’s sentencing began on May 17 but was adjourned part-way through.
The teenager was facing jail time but his lawyer sought a significant discount for mitigating factors.
Judge Crosbie wanted both the defence and Crown to address him further on that, so halted the hearing until May 24.
“It is the first time I have ever taken that approach because what the court was been asked for in terms of discounts for mitigating factors is as high as I have ever seen,” he said.
The young victim’s parents delivered powerful victim impact statements to the court, which Judge Crosbie acknowledged at the second hearing.
“The words of (her) mother and father have resounded with me since I was here two weeks ago,” he said.
“Thank you so much for your words to me… I know they were difficult to write and to say. I felt your raw emotion, as I did your sense of betrayal by Mr Miller and your feeling of helplessness when it came to protecting your most precious.
“I understand your anger and your rage, but I also applaud your support of, and commitment towards, your daughter.”
He said Miller’s offending has had “an unquantifiable effect” on the victim and her family, who were “very close” to his own family.
“You would regularly stay overnight at (the victim’s family home). It was during these overnight stays that you offended against (her) on two occasions.
“On each of the occasions you followed a similar modus operandi which resulted in the four offences.”
The offending came to light in early November 2023.
Miller’s mother noticed he was “unusually quiet”. Over the next 45 minutes she and her husband asked Miller “numerous times” what was wrong.
“You eventually revealed that you had done something to (the girl) ‘in a sexual way’.”
The next day his father went to police and reported what Miller had disclosed.
“He was asked about the extent of your offending and said that it: ‘started off as little stuff’ but ‘it’s just getting worse and worse and we can’t get to the bottom of it’,” said Judge Crosbie.
“On November 13 police interviewed (the girl) who disclosed the details of the offending.”
Judge Crosbie said sentencing was about denouncing Miller’s conduct and deterring him from future offending.
“You knew (the girl) and her family and were in a position of trust. You betrayed her trust and her family’s trust, which is even more pronounced because of the closeness of the relationship that did exist,” he said.
Both the Crown and defence agreed the offending was aggravated by the girl’s age, that the offending occurred on more than one occasion; and the flow-on effects to her victim and her family.
They also agreed that a sentence starting point of seven years in prison was appropriate.
“That figure should suggest to you the seriousness of what has occurred and the jeopardy for you,” said Judge Crosbie.
“You are 19 years of age and for sentence on extremely serious charges… I must hold you to account, not only for the gravity of the offending but for the effect of your offending on this young person and her family.
“For them, this ordeal is far from over as (she) will need support for quite some time.”
Judge Crosbie said sentencing also had to incorporate rehabilitation and to attempt to prevent Miller from reoffending.
He said the nature of Miller’s offending was “highly unusual” but pre-sentence reports offered somewhat of an explanation.
“I have never encountered that in more than 20 years on the bench,” he said.
Pre-sentence reports offered somewhat of an explanation - revealing Miller’s history of concussion, developmental issues and depression.
“Youth, particularly in young men whose brains do not properly form until around the age of 25, is a potent aspect of the sentencing process,” said Judge Crosbie.
“It goes to culpability and to the likelihood of rehabilitation and living an offence-free life.
“When one adds to that the effects of concussion and depression on the neurological and psychological functioning of a young man, one can understand what occasionally leads someone, who is much-loved, from a good home, and who has otherwise led a blameless life, to do something as serious and depraved as you have done.
“It does not excuse what you have done but both the law and science say that it provides a basis to understand why, of all people, you did this when you did it.”
Judge Crosbie said a “central focus” of the sentencing exercise was Miller’s youth.
“I understand that this factor and many others will be of little solace to (the victim’s) family,” he said.
“I understand that, as I do their grief. I sit here as a parent and a grandparent, although obviously today I am a judge. But I understand what they are feeling through my own experiences.
Miller’s lawyer Adam Holland submitted that a 95% discount should be applied from the starting point - 25% for the guilty plea, 25% for “assistance to police and remorse, 25% for youth, 10% for previous good character and 10% for “personal circumstances and rehabilitative prospects”.
He said home detention should be imposed.
In contrast, Crown Prosecutor Andrew McRae said a lesser discount of 75% was appropriate.
He agreed that an end sentence of home detention “may be appropriate” if the discounts resulted in an end sentence of less than two years.
“I think that an elephant in the room is the issue of discounts,” said Judge Crosbie.
“As should be clear to you by now, sentencing you today, Mr Miller, is not entirely about you. Denouncing and deterring your conduct sends a message to the community. It can also be a protective mechanism for the community.
“I hear, through my day-to-day life as a judge but also in the community, the concerns that exist around discounts.
“My role is to apply the law.”
The judge referred to a significant number of similar cases and gave an extensive explanation of sentencing methodology in a bid to help those in court understand his final decision.
He agreed to give Miller a total discount of 75%.
“Applying these discounts from a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment leads to a notional end sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment which demonstrates that there is clearly sufficient mitigation for the court to consider home detention for you,” he said.
“In my assessment, the appropriate sentence is not one of 21 months’ imprisonment. It is one of 10 months’ home detention.
“This is close to the most restrictive term of home detention that can be imposed, carrying with it strong elements of denunciation and deterrence.
“A sentence of home detention will also properly reflect your diminished moral culpability and accommodate significant rehabilitative needs.”
Judge Crosbie acknowledged home detention was “uncommon for serious sexual offending”.
“I acknowledge that the sentence for (the victim and her family) may not be one that they were expecting,” he said.
“However, in my assessment, the sentence is one that I am obliged to pass as a matter of law.
He also ordered Miller to make an emotional harm payment of $5000 to the victim’s family and said there was “an additional rider” to the sentence.
“You will take such treatment, programme, counselling, or intervention as may be considered appropriate,” he said.
He hoped sentencing brought the victim’s parents some level of closure and “an ability to focus on their continuing love and support” for the victim.
The victim’s mother said the result was “absolutely disgusting”.
“It’s a load of s***. I’m just so glad we can get it out there.
“I am 99% sure he would have carried on... he was just working his way up the ladder doing disgusting things to her.”
Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 18 years with a particular focus on family 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
He faces two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.