Five-year jail sentence for Westport offences

Press, 7 March 1984, Page 16

Five-year jail sentence for Westport offences

Greymouth reporter The bizarre procedure to which Ziggy Stardust Buckeridge, aged 22, unemployed, forced two women to submit made the two charges of sodomy and one of rape to which he had pleaded guilty more serious, Mr Justice Barker said in the High Court at Greymouth yesterday. Sentencing Buckeridge to five years in prison, his Honour said that the particular actions were regarded more seriously because the prisoner had used a knife and had wounded one of the complainants. Buckeridge had pleaded guilty at the end of a depositions hearing in Greymouth last month and had been committed to the High Court for sentence. The charges related to Buckeridge’s assault on two young

women at Fox River, south of Westport, on December 23.

“Society has expressed abhorrence at such offences, and the courts look to a deterrent sentence,” said his Honour.

“Your background is not as disadvantaged as many others. Your problems are self-induced, addiction to alcohol and illicit drugs, and no doubt you were addicted to both on this terrible night. “You have pleaded guilty and the courts do recognise that in considering sentence, you have saved the expense of a trial and your apologies to the complainants seem genuine,” said his Honour. "More importantly, you have saved the two complainants the horror and indignity of retelling the events of that night in front of a courtroom of strangers.

“I take note that you have spent two months in custody, but a fairly lengthy term of imprisonment is required to show the revulsion of society,” said his Honour.

“I direct that the probation report be made available to the prison authorities so that you can have necessary treatment, but the minimum sentence I can impose is one of five years imprisonment.” Mr S. J. Hembrow, who appeared for * Buckeridge, said that the defendant had only realised the full facts

after the depositions. Buckeridge’s recollection of the events had been hazy, and as they were related during the depositions hearing, he had cried. There was no need for the offence. On the day in question, Buckeridge had been celebrating the pregnancy of his de facto wife. He had been drinking double rums, smoking marijuana and had boiled up a daquiri plant. As a result he could not have been acting lucidly. Both complainants were known to him and he had been a regular visitor to them. He had made no effort to leave the area after the offences. Mr Hembrow said that it bad not been Buckeridge’s practice to carry a knife, and had never been known

to become involved in violence. He had apologised to the complainants, and had voluntarily ■gone to the police station. A large proportion of his recollections of what had happened was that he had been told by the complainants. He had been indulging in drugs since the •age of 14 years, and that had not been discouraged by his father. Six months ago, the prisoner had embraced the Hare Krishna faith, which had non-violence as one of its tenets, and Buckeridge could not understand now why he had been violent to the women. The only answer was that his judgment had been impaired by drugs and alcohol.

Mr G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown.