KEY POINTS:
A jury has found a prominent Canterbury man - who still cannot be named - guilty on seven charges of child sexual abuse committed more than 30 years ago.
He was remanded on bail for sentencing in the High Court on December 19, by Justice Graham Panckhurst at
the end of the 10-day trial, Court News website reported.
The man appeared shaken in the dock as the jury returned its verdicts 28 hours after it was sent out to consider the 12 charges remaining in the Crown's indictment.
It reached verdicts on 11 of them, but could not agree on one rape.
It found the man guilty on two charges of inducing a girl under 12 to do an indecent act, three counts of indecent assault, one of sodomy, and one of rape.
There were not guilty verdicts on four charges of rape.
Justice Panckhurst told the man that a prison term was likely and told him granting bail pending sentence was not a indication of sentence.
Crown prosecutor Phil Shamy opposed bail because he said, "Given the verdicts, a prison sentence must be inevitable."
The guilty verdicts relate to charges alleging abuse between 30 and 40 years ago when the complainant was aged eight and continuing into her teenage years.
Some supporters in court were comforting each other or in tears as the verdicts were given. Two women left the High Court and could he heard crying outside as sentencing arrangements continued.
The date may change depending on whether the Probation Service can complete its report at relatively short notice to get the sentencing done before Christmas.
A major argument is likely over continued suppression of the man's name.
The victim, now in her 40s, wants the suppression lifted so that the man can be named.
"I don't see any need now for the suppression to continue," Mr Shamy said.
Until now the man has had suppression of his name, age, the locations of the offending, and all details of his career.
Defence counsel Jonathan Eaton presented three letters from family members concerned about the effect that publication could have on other ventures.
Justice Panckhurst said it was probable that suppression would be lifted, but he decided to continue it until sentencing or until it could be argued in a special sitting.
Counsel for the other family members may be heard at that sitting.
- NZPA
