Michael Mead persisted in inflicting “intense pain” on the victim on multiple occasions. Photo / File
Michael Mead persisted in inflicting “intense pain” on the victim on multiple occasions. Photo / File
Warning: This story contains details about sexual offending that may upset some readers.
A woman who was subjected to several violent and painful sexual assaults, including some with a wooden baton, says it caused her to suffer ongoing medical issues.
Despite the woman’s protests and pleas not todo it, Michael Mead persisted in inflicting “intense pain” on the victim on multiple occasions.
Mead, 64, appeared for sentencing in the Hamilton District Court on Monday on two representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful connection during consensual sex.
Crown solicitor Lexie Glaser pointed out to Judge Arthur Tompkins it wasn’t the first time Mead had sexually assaulted a woman: he was jailed in the High Court at Wellington in 2009 for inserting a metal whisk into a woman’s bottom.
He then went on to reoffend and was recently found guilty by a Hamilton jury of two more charges, relating to his violating her with his fist and a wooden baton, which he kept stored under his bed.
Judge Tompkins said the victim had pleaded, “No, please do not do it” to Mead, but he ignored her.
The assaults caused “intense pain and bleeding”, which caused her to seek medical attention.
She spoke in court of the “significant and ongoing traumatic” effect the offending had on her.
It had affected her ability to sleep, trust others, and work.
Glaser urged the judge to hand down a minimum non-parole period of 50%.
Michael Mead was sentenced in the Hamilton District Court.
‘Particularly concerning’
Mead had 42 previous convictions, including for indecent assault, blackmail and assaulting a female, but most seriously, the 2009 unlawful sexual connection.
In that incident, which NZME wrote about at the time, Mead had spiked his victim’s drinks at a party and committed the sex attack while she was in a drugged state.
She woke up feeling pain in her bottom, and as if something was stuck there.
She asked Mead, who lived in Whanganui at the time, to remove it, but he initially said “no”.
When he finally did, the item was revealed as a metal whisk with sharp bristles which had become caught..
A few days later, he returned to her house, ripped her clothes off, and forced her to walk around the backyard naked.
He then sent her emails containing digitally altered photographs taken from pornographic films, and said that if she complained to police he would send the images to her family and friends, saying they were taken at the party.
Judge Tompkins labelled that offending as “particularly concerning”.
‘He needs to do a lot of work on himself’
Mead’s lawyer, Richard Barnsdale, urged the judge not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI), instead arguing in favour of letting the Parole Board decide when he would be set free.
“For Mr Mead to convince the Parole Board to be safe to be released, he will need to do a lot of work and see a lot of people, and make a lot of alterations to his life,” Barnsdale said.
“[Mead] says that he hasn’t had any counselling yet and that is the only way that he can be made safe to be released into the community.”
He urged the judge to take a starting point of around 10 years.
When reminded about this previous conviction, Barnsdale said his client had “a major personal and psychological problem in this area and it would have to be treated while he is serving his sentence”.
“That is a factor more likely to concern the Parole Board,” he told the judge.
He asked that Mead be released from prison “while he is still not too old and can form another life in a safe way”.
‘At very high risk to future partners’
Judge Tompkins noted how the recent offending had changed the victim’s life “significantly”.
After taking a starting point of 11 years, Judge Tompkins found there were no mitigating circumstances, particularly because Mead had taken the case to trial.
As for the MPI, Judge Tompkins noted Mead’s previous jail term “didn’t have the kind of protective effect which the community is entitled to expect”.
