The boys’ parents had used up leave entitlements and been distracted at work. They had suffered financial loss and emotional strain in their marriages.
The boys had to have ongoing counselling.
One of them was bedwetting and having other sleep disturbances. One had begun lashing out and couldn’t control his emotions.
The boys had missed their grandparents, at whose house the offending occurred and who had since been sponsoring their son — the perpetrator — on bail there.
Each of the boys’ mothers wrote victim impact statements. Both were read to the court, one by one of the mothers.
She and her husband were now worried their son had been introduced to a cycle of abuse and could himself potentially end up an abuser. It was a nightmare for them, the woman said.
At sentencing counsel Nicola Wright said her client had been sexually abused as a child but had gone on to do well at school and had a successful life and career that included frequent overseas and national travel.
The last two years, since the boys’ disclosures, had been a huge fall from grace for him.
He had been confined by bail conditions to living on his parents’ isolated property, where he slept in a room in which the offending against him had occurred years earlier.
The key issue for the court in sentencing her client was the discount that might be available to him as a victim of sexual and physical abuse himself, Mrs Wright said.
A report showed he had normalised that behaviour over time and had internalised confusion around relationships and appropriate boundaries.
Discount for previous good character and remorse could also be given, Mrs Wright said.
Letters before the court were testimony to her client’s previous good character. His potential for rehabilitation was strong.
While restorative justice was not appropriate due to the boys’ young ages, family hui had occurred at which her client had openly expressed remorse. He had undergone psychotherapy.
Judge Cathcart set an overall starting point of seven-and-a-half years.
Considering mitigating factors, the judge noted various report writers’ comments, including that there was no issue with the nature or length of sentence that could be imposed.
The man had been abused between the ages of five and seven by a close family member. He had not told anyone as he regarded the family as nice and did not want to create a problem.
He had poor self-esteem, and had suffered from anxiety and depression.
The abuse had interfered with his ability to form key attachments. He had developed a negative self-belief and view of the world.
The man tended to minimise or deny some of his offending, as was demonstrated by his election to go to trial on the more serious matters, Judge Cathcart said.
A specialist report did not go so far as to establish a causative link between the man’s history and his offending.
Nevertheless, that history must have had some influence on the man’s actions. A discount of 12 months could be appropriately applied, the judge said.
The man’s previous good character earned him a further eight months discount and his remorse, two months discount.
There was further discount of two months for his time on bail and six months for his two guilty pleas.
The mothers’ statements to the court included their hopes that the man could accept the outcome of his bad choices and said how his offending had affected everyone in their whanau, including himself.
One of the women said she hoped he could be rehabilitated on release so another child would not be abused by him.
Her family were trying to restore their fractured whanau unit.
The other woman said she had missed contact with her parents, since her brother had been bailed to live with them.
She had no ill feelings towards them. They were supporting their son, the same way she had supported hers.
