
Tauranga man sentenced to home detention for sexually assaulting niece when he was a teen
'I feel as if I've lost so much more from your actions than you did,' she said, addressing him through her victim impact statement.
'Sometimes I regret telling anyone, and taking you to court, because I would still have my family.'
She had lost her relationship with her father and with her grandmother.
'I'm grieving over relationships I no longer have with such important people in my life,' she said.
'Because of you, my name is a sensitive topic... [it is] followed by a scoff.
'I'm the outcast who has to live with being ridiculed. This should all be you. I'm in the position you're meant to be in. You're the reason I'm considered a villain.'
Her uncle was between 16 and 17 years old when he assaulted her while she visited her grandmother's house, where he lived.
The incidents involved him groping her, lying beside her on a mattress and putting his genitalia against her body, and also placing her hands on his genitalia.
The young woman, who's now in her 20s, asked her uncle why he continued to deny his actions.
'I had to sit there and listen to your lawyer call me a liar, saying I made everything up, while you sat in silence ... knowing I was telling the truth.'
She said he'd made things 'a lot harder' in his attempt to 'save' himself.
'Was it not enough that you ruined my childhood?'
The young woman said the experience showed her anyone could harm her no matter their relationship with her, and it meant she had always been on her guard around her uncle.
'You were confident enough to assault me in your mother's bedroom, so I thought, 'What's stopping you anywhere else?''
Advertisement Advertise with NZME.
Judge Bill Lawson considered the two discrete incidents, for which he was found guilty, to be 'serious acts of indecency on a very young person', involving skin-on-skin contact.
It was clear the offending had a 'significant impact' on the victim, the judge found.
'I have to say, it's not surprising. She was very young when this happened. She was entitled to your trust, and you did not provide that.'
However, he also took into account the man's age at the time.
He was under 18 when the incidents occurred, and was given a 30% discount for this factor.
His age at the time of the offending also prevented the judge, under Section 18 of the Sentencing Act, from sending him to jail, even if that had been considered the appropriate outcome.
However, Judge Lawson considered the appropriate sentence was one of home detention, given the desirability of keeping people in the community where possible.
The judge said there was no indication he was a 'continued risk'.
While the judge initially had concerns about the presence of a child at the proposed address, it turned out the girl living there was the man's own child.
The man had lived at the address with the child while he was on electronically monitored bail, without incident, and there was 'no suggestion' that there was any risk to the girl.
The Crown submitted a starting point of two and a half years.
Prosecutor Laura Clay pointed to the breach of trust, given the relationship, and the fact that the offending happened in the grandmother's home, where the victim should have been safe.
Defence lawyer Nicola Pointer submitted a starting point of between 16 months and two years.
Judge Lawson adopted a starting point of two years' imprisonment and after the discount for youth was applied, reached an endpoint of 17 months' imprisonment.
There was no discount for remorse, as the man did not accept the jury's verdict.
This was commuted to a home detention sentence of eight and a half months, with emotional harm reparation of $1000.
'No amount of money that I order you to pay is going to alleviate the suffering of your victim,' Judge Lawson said.
'But the law knows no other way but to provide at least a level of monetary payment to assist with counselling and some of the other factors she's had to undertake.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Dewar jailed over $113k theft
Former rogue cop John Dewar has been sent back to prison after a jury found him guilty of stealing $113,000 from a finance company of which he was the boss. It has been 18 years since Dewar was last jailed, for attempting to cover up rape allegations laid against police colleagues Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum and Brad Shipton. The trio were eventually cleared of raping Louise Nicholas, but Schollum and Shipton were convicted of raping a 20-year-old in Mount Maunganui in 1989. Dewar — a top officer in Rotorua when he left in 1999 — was jailed for four and a-half years, reduced from an initial six years — for the attempted cover-up. Yesterday, Dewar was back before Judge Noel Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court for sentencing on three charges of theft by a person in a special relationship and three charges of obtaining by deception from a finance company he helped set up in 2015. Dewar was the brains, while his fellow shareholders provided the financial backing of the firm. The name of the company and its directors are permanently suppressed. A jury spent eight days hearing evidence last month relating to Dewar's offending between 2015 and 2019, when he stole about $113,000 to help pay off a personal loan, buy weed killer, a spray unit, a toastie machine maker and Hush Puppies shoes. Part of his defence was that he was never told not to act in the way he did. But the jury did not buy it and instead found him guilty. Crown solicitor Jacinda Hamilton said Dewar had "blatantly abused a position of trust and confidence by engaging in calculated and dishonest conduct that caused significant loss to a company with whom he was in a management position". Dewar had significant commercial experience but had "deliberately ignored his obligations of trust and confidence to the other directors and did so largely for his own financial gain". Ms Hamilton said it was a "classic illustration of the old adage a leopard doesn't change its spots". She said the Crown's estimated loss of $150,000 was conservative, as at trial, company directors had claimed it was more than $220,000. Ms Hamilton said there were no mitigating features of Dewar's offending despite his relinquishing his shareholding in the company, which had since been sold. She called for him to be jailed. Dewar defended himself at trial but had lawyer Louis Wilkins at his side offering advice when needed. Yesterday, Mr Wilkins did all the talking for Dewar and tried his best to keep him out of prison. He sought a lower starting point of 30 months' prison, then argued there were minimal aggravating features present in Dewar's offending, namely sophistication and the amount stolen. The judge noted a sense of sadness from several of the victims, who felt "somewhat betrayed" by his actions. "That there had been a solid friendship in many respects, they had been duped by your conduct." Judge Cocurullo took a starting point of three years' imprisonment and agreed to issue an uplift for his previous conviction. He then allowed him a 15% discount for offering up his shareholding as reparation, and a further 12% for medical issues before coming to an end jail term of 26 months. — Belinda Feek, Open Justice journalist

NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Court martial for soldier accused of covertly filming women during sexual encounters
He admits taking the videos and images - but says the women consented, or he genuinely believed they were consenting at the time. The women reject this, saying they had no idea they were being recorded. Court martial proceedings began today for Smith at Burnham Military Camp before Judge Tom Gilbert. A court martial is a military court that tries members of the armed forces for violations of military law. It is a structured legal process, similar to a civilian court, and a decision on guilt or innocence is made by a panel of military members - three in Smith's case. If a defendant is found guilty, punishments can include fines, demotions, or imprisonment. Until today, the Herald could not publish details of the allegations against Smith. Between August and November 2020, he is accused of 'intentionally or recklessly' making an intimate visual recording of a woman. He is further charged with deliberately making intimate recordings of a second woman in November 2020 and December 2020. The alleged civil offences contravene the Armed Forces Disciplinary Act 1971. Judge Tom Gilbert. Photo / Pool The names of women have been suppressed. Both were in new relationships with Smith at the time of the alleged offending. Judge Gilbert also suppressed the specific details of the content of the videos and images. He said the Herald could only describe the content of the material and 'what was engaged in between parties' as 'intimate sexual activity'. Anything outside that description was prohibited. During the trial, the court will hear from both complainants via audio-visual link, and the panel deciding Smith's fate will be shown the intimate recordings in question. A number of other witnesses will also be called. Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O'Byrne outlined the Crown case against Smith this morning. Corporal Manu Smith at the Court-martial proceedings. Photo / Pool She said the first woman met Smith in July 2020, and a sexual relationship 'progressed quickly'. During sexual activity at her Christchurch home she 'felt something was off' and when she looked up Smith was 'pointing his cellphone at her'. She told him to stop recording and delete the footage. 'She told him off for recording her and he played it off as a joke,' said O'Byrne. The woman assumed the footage was deleted - but Smith later sent it to her via Snapchat. Snapchat is social messaging app where messages are designed to disappear after being viewed or after a set time 'She told him off again, saying she told him not to do that and it wasn't ok,' said O'Byrne. The woman stopped seeing Smith and reported the matter to the police. The second woman was at Smith's defence house in Burnham when she was recorded. O'Byrne said that during sexual activity,, Smith took three photos of the woman. 'Without her consent - or even time to discuss what was happening. At the time,the she did not realise (photographs were being taken),' said the prosecutor. Prosecutor Flight Lieutenant Hannah O'Byrne. Photo / Pool Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots. She told him to delete the photos, and he 'played it off as a joke'. Smith sent her the images on Snapchat, and she took screenshots. The pair engaged in sexual activity a few days later. 'She could not see what he was doing,' said O'Byrne. 'She did not realise she was being filmed.' Later on, she received a message from Smith on Snapchat. Given his messaging history, she decided to turn on screen recording before she opened it. It was the footage of her taken during sex. 'She asked if he had sent it to anyone else. He played it off as a joke,' said O'Byrne. The second woman reported the incident to police, handing over the screen recordings. Defence lawyer Matthew Hague. Photo / Pool The court heard that during their relationships with Smith, they had willingly and knowingly sent him explicit images and video, including naked photos. These were sent via Snapchat. Both vehemently reject Smith's explanation that they consented to him filming and or photographing them. The first woman began giving evidence before lunch. 'In the video, you can see me trying to swipe his phone away, telling him to put it away,' she said. She said there had been no discussion before sex about whether Smith could record. When she told him off, he was 'very blase'. 'He just said 'no, it's all good',' she recalled. She said she felt 'pretty gross'. 'My privacy had been invaded,' she said. In a brief opening address, Smith's lawyer, Matthew Hague, told the panel that his client denied all the charges. 'Let me be clear… what you've heard… is just allegations,' he said. 'It is not evidence. At present… the accused must be presumed innocent." The court martial is set to continue for at least three days. Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on


NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Gisborne-based fishing company fined $13,000 for prohibited fishing; boat and catch seized
A Gisborne-based fishing company and its skipper were fined $13,000 after fishing in a seasonally prohibited area. The Crown also seized the company's $250,000 fishing vessel and more than $16,000 worth of fish.