Court doubles sentence for sex offences

Press, 15 April 1986, Page 36

Court doubles sentence for sex offences

PA Wellington Complaints involving a man, aged 32, were among several partly prompted by the television production, “Amelia,” about incest, the Court of Appeal said.

The Court doubled the 18-month prison sentence imposed on the man by the High Court on charges concerning the sexual abuse of two girls aged 12 and seven. The Court said the case was not one of incest, so the biological risks of that crime were not involved, but otherwise the breach of trust was much the same. “It has become all too clear that there is a disturbing incidence of this sort of conduct in New

Zealand, as in other countries,” the Court said. “While the problem is certainly not unique in New Zealand, it is the responsibility of this Court to rule on the approach to sentencing in such cases in this country.” The Solicitor-General, Mr Paul Neazor, Q.C., had appealed against an 18month jail sentence imposed by a High Court judge on the respondent on four charges involving indecent assault, indecent acts, and sexual intercourse with young girls. The Court granted the application and increased the sentence to three years on each of the charges of unlawful sexual intercourse and to two years on each of the charges of indecent assault, all to be served concurrently. The man had pleaded guilty to the four charges in the District Court at New Plymouth. His name was suppressed. The Court comprised Mr Justice Cooke, president; Mr Justice McMullin and Mr Justice Somers.

Mr Justice Cooke, giving the judgment of the Court, said the charges covered about five years and related to two girls. The respondent had successive de facto relationships during this time with two older women, and in each instance the criminal conduct was against a daughter of the women with whom he was then living. His Honour said the Court recognised that the judge was moved by considerations of humanity towards the offender and it disliked increasing the sentence. Nevertheless it had to do so. “We think that imprisonment for three years was the very least that could rightly be imposed for the total criminality of this conduct with two girls,” he said. “Our only consideration is as to whether the increase should not be greater. “But, this man is en-

titled to some credit for the early confession and guilty pleas, sparing the girls any ordeal of evidence,” he said. “In this particular case some regard can be had to the exceptionally lenient recommendations in the psychiatric and presentence reports. But for these factors a sentence of five years might well have been necessary.”