I omitted the intro summary under 620 characters from the Format C package. Here it is:
A father has been jailed for 12 years after repeatedly sexually abusing his daughter over four years. Nelson District Court Judge Chris Macklin described the offending as being at the highest end for a single victim and highlighted the profound breach of trust involved. The man, whose identity is permanently suppressed to protect his daughter, must serve at least six years before becoming eligible for parole.
eLocal Report: Based on reporting by Tracy Neal for NZ Herald, republished by RNZ HERE
A father who repeatedly sexually abused his daughter over a period of about four years has been sentenced to 12 years in prison, with a minimum non-parole period of six years.
The man has permanent name suppression to protect his daughter's identity. He pleaded guilty to seven charges involving rape, sexual violation and indecent acts. In sentencing him in the Nelson District Court, Judge Chris Macklin described the scale of the offending and degree of violation as being at the highest end of offending involving a single victim.
The offending began in 2013 after the girl went to her parents' bedroom seeking comfort following a nightmare. According to the sentencing facts reported by NZME, her father sexually assaulted and raped her while her mother slept beside her.
It became the beginning of years of repeated offending. The abuse occurred in different circumstances around the family home, with the court hearing that the girl was at times frightened of making her father angry and felt unable to refuse him.
A Profound Breach of Trust
Judge Macklin emphasised the girl's vulnerability and the extraordinary breach of trust involved in a parent sexually abusing their own child.
"Because this was not any child, this was your daughter," the judge told the offender.
The judge said the parent-child relationship demanded the highest level of care and protection, making the breach of trust one of the most significant aggravating factors in assessing the offending.
Judge Macklin referred to the young woman as a survivor rather than a victim, acknowledging that she had survived both the offending and the burdens and obstacles subsequently placed before her.
The abuse finally ended when she left home as soon as she was legally able.
Guilty Pleas Avoided Further Trauma
Judge Macklin adopted a starting point of 15 years' imprisonment.
Crown prosecutor Sophie O'Donoghue submitted that the offending had involved planning and premeditation. The judge found there had been persistence suggesting some degree of premeditation, but ultimately characterised the offending as "impulsive and opportunistic". He made clear that this did not reduce the offender's culpability.
The man's guilty pleas resulted in a 15 percent sentencing reduction. Judge Macklin described the allowance as "somewhat generous" because of the lateness of the pleas, but said they had spared the survivor and wider whānau the "significant further trauma" of having to go through a trial.
The judge also allowed a 5 percent reduction after considering aspects of the offender's own background and personal circumstances. He stressed that those circumstances did not excuse his behaviour.
Of particular concern was the assessment of his continuing risk.
A pre-sentence report found what Judge Macklin described as an "incredible lack of insight" into the seriousness of the offending. The man was assessed as presenting a moderate risk of further sexual offending and a high risk of harm to others.
Judge Macklin therefore imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of six years, meaning the offender must serve at least half of his 12-year sentence before becoming eligible to be considered for parole.
Survivor Spared a Trial
While the guilty pleas reduced the ultimate sentence, the court's reasoning highlighted why such reductions exist.
They meant the young woman was not required to recount years of sexual abuse before a court and undergo cross-examination about what had happened to her.
Judge Macklin acknowledged the severity and ugliness of the offending while recognising that the offender had eventually accepted responsibility.
"You have, after a time, come to accept what was alleged and you have taken responsibility for it without forcing upon your victim the further indignity of trial," he said.
The sentence nevertheless reflects the seriousness of repeated sexual offending against a child by the person who carried one of the greatest responsibilities for protecting her.
Where to Get Help
If you or someone you know has experienced sexual abuse or sexual violence, support is available.
Safe to talk: 0800 044 334
Rape Crisis: 0800 88 33 00
Women's Refuge: 0800 733 843
Victim Support: 0800 842 846
HELP Auckland: 09 623 1700
HELP Wellington: 04 801 6655
Tautoko Tāne Male Survivors Aotearoa: tautokotane.nz
If it is an emergency and you or someone else is at immediate risk, call 111.
Source
Tracy Neal for NZ Herald, republished by RNZ, Nelson District Court: Father jailed for repeated sexual offending against daughter.
Read the original report
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.