Indecent assault of girls admitted

Press, 6 August 1987, Page 10

Indecent assault of girls admitted

A man who admitted in the District Court yesterday three offences of indecently assaulting girls aged between 18 months and five years, was granted interim suppression of his name after submissions by counsel, Miss J. M. Drake. The submissions included that, in the aftermath of the trial over the death of Louisa Damodran, there was a lot more prejudiced public opinion in Christchurch against offences such as the defendant had committed. He could feel he was now being branded along with people like Peter Joseph Holdem (convicted of Louisa Damodran’s murder), and the killer of Teresa Cormack in Napier. Judge Jamieson said he would not consider a final name suppression order on the grounds submitted by counsel. However, he granted interim suppression solely because the police summary in relation to the offences had not been read to the Court.

There could be prejudice if his name was published before the facts were known.

The defendant, aged 48, admitted charges of indecently assaulting a girl, then aged five years, on various dates between February 1 and November 30, 1982, and similar charges in'relation to a girl aged 18 months, between November 5 and 14 last year, and a girl aged two years on various dates between November 1 last year, and February 1 this year.

He was convicted and remanded on bail to August 19 for sentence. The defendant originally had elected trial by jury on charges of sexually violating the two youngest girls and indecently assaulting the girl,

aged five. Yesterday, on the application of Mr R. E. Neave for the Crown, the charges relating to the two youngest girls were reduced to indecent assault, and the defendant admitted. the three charges. Mr Neave asked leave for the summary relating to the offences to be read at the sentencing date instead of yesterday, because of consultation over this with defence counsel.

Miss Drake then successfully sought bail until the sentencing date. She also asked for interim suppression of name, saying that suppression had been refused?.,-at his earlier appearances. Publication of his name earlier had led to his losing his job, and to quite serious hurts of a personal nature as a result of people reading about the proceedings. That had to be balanced against the public interest, Miss Drake said, but she referred to the prejudice he could suffer because of public opinion fomented by the killing of two children in recent months. The defendant’s court appearances had coincided with serious incidents involving other children and he could suffer more because of the present level of public opinion. The Judge said none of the reasons advanced would justify final suppression of the defendant’s name. The public was entitled to know whom they could or could not trust. However, he acceded to the request for interim suppression because details of the offences had not been heard. There could be prejudice to him, until the public knew the circumstances of his offences.