Preventive detention

Press, 17 March 1987, Page 16

Preventive detention

PA Wellington A Upper Hutt mqn has been jailed for an indefinite period for twice raping a woman, aged 56, at Lower Hutt in December, 1985. Mr Justice Heron sentenced Selwyn Winiata Innes, 31, to preventive detention — which means he cannot be considered for release for at least seven years. His Honour said preventive detention was the ultimate judicial weapon, but for a judge to impose it was an admission of failurei • ./ ' On a charge of sodomy of the woman, his Honour said preventive detention was not able to be imposed, and sentenced Innes to 10 years jail. A five-year prison sentence was passed for aggravated robbery.

Mr Justice Heron said that Innes, masked and armed with a knife, broke into a house where a woman was alone.

Innes was jailed for three years in 1977 for rape of a woman in her 80s. The next year he was jailed for 2>4 years for indecent assault on a woman in circumstances dramatically similar to the present case, his Honour said.

Innes was implicated in

a number of offences in Wellington before his conviction for rape.

Innes was able to commit rape and sodomy on the Lower Hutt woman in a short time because he had “such a degree of expertise in his type of crime,” his Honour said. Innes, who spoke for himself, maintained his innocence. He had been sodomised by his foster father who had also encouraged him to burgle houses and procure sexual partners for him.

Innes said it was his foster- father who raped the 83-year-old woman, although Innes had pleaded guilty to the crime.

“I witnessed it and could do nothing to stop it,” he said. “It hurts to say that after all this time.” Innes said he covered up for his foster father to protect him. He said he fervently denied saying that he hated pakehas and wanted vengeance.

Innes said there was wide publicity about his escape from the Lower Hutt court last April. Although he was in prison for 14 months he did not get a copy of the witnesses’ depositions until three days before his trial began, and his instruction to counsel to call

defence witnesses was ignored. i

Innqs said the prosecutor and defence counsel at his trial collaborated with a police inspector. The police seated round the courtroom would have given; the jury the impression that he might escape and was dangerous. Innes said he sympathised ;with the rape complainant because the person 'responsible for the offenses was “still out there.” Mir Justice Heron said Innes’s trial was handled fairly.-