Editorial: Beware the beasts we can't track

About three years ago I penned a court story about a local builder.

This chap ventured into the Hastings District Court dock after spending hours sitting with his mum and dad in the public gallery.

He had blond surfie-type hair, was handsome, fit and intelligent looking. He wouldn't have piqued my interest for any reason other than he looked distinctly ordinary. Unlike many, he didn't wear his crimes on his sleeve.

If I had to, using only his appearance and age as clues, I'd have guessed he was up for either cannabis possession or drink-driving.

A quick glance at the charge sheets confirmed he'd been found with a stash of dope. Another quick glance confirmed there were two infinitely more disturbing charges.

This nondescript chap was also there to plead guilty to charges laid after eight child pornography files were discovered on his home computer in Hastings.

I wasn't surprised at his crimes per se, they crop up every now and then, but I was amazed at how this guy flew right under my radar.

Ignorance on my part perhaps, but nonetheless disturbing. If I can perpetuate a stereotype, and I will, most of the "sexos" I see in court, look the part.

On re-reading this guy's charge sheet I noted he lived literally around the corner from me. His stealthy appearance and proximity to where I live with my children added an insidious note to the offending. It was difficult not to take it personally. After all, my kids pushed their scooters and bikes past his house on the way to the park, or school.

The following day we published the story under the headline: "Man, 21, fined over child porn".

I watched his address like a hawk.

Like him, his house was nondescript. A 1940ish weatherboard bungalow, lawns mowed, well maintained.

About three days after the story went to print I spotted a removal truck parked up his driveway.

The headline had forced him out of town.

Hastings' parents had one less offender to worry about.

But my relief was tempered with the realisation we'd simply moved him into other residential neighbourhoods. Somewhere where he wasn't known, where no one knew his crimes.

It's why the public howling over Stewart Murray Wilson, also known by the epithet "Beast of Blenheim", is problematic.

While my nefarious former neighbour's crimes aren't in the same realm as Wilson's, his offending has the potential to claim many more victims.

The production of vile computer images for consumption, needs a market. Anyone who consumes such repugnant offerings perpetuates the exploitation of children, albeit from a safe, digital distance.

Frankly, I'm in favour of these criminals being released back into the communities where their crimes were committed. Not because I condone a citizen summary justice, but because it would ensure the predators remain the village pariah.

While Wilson's crimes are unequivocally loathsome, these notorious offenders are the least of our problems. The more apparent threat lies in the neighbourhood beast we know nothing about.