(CNS): A local man, who cannot be named because of his connections to the little girl he sexually abused for five years, starting when she was just seven years old, will serve only a few months behind bars, even though on Tuesday he was given a sentence of more than three years. The case against the 43-year-old man took years to come to trial. Because of this and because he was on a restrictive, electronically-monitored curfew as he awaited his day in court, much of that time has been credited as time served against his prison sentence.
The man was arrested in 2020. After various issues led to long delays in the case coming to court, he was found guilty in 2023 of seven counts of gross indecency and sexual assault. The case was heard in a judge-alone trial, presided over by the late Justice Michael Wood, who died after the trial and before the guilty man was sentenced, leading to even more delays in concluding the case.
As Justice Marlene Carter, who took over the case following the death of the trial judge, delivered the sentence ruling, she said the delays in the case were “egregious” and not the fault of the defendant, who had worn a monitor with varying degrees of restriction on his movement for four years, including periods, such as the school holidays and weekends, when he was under home confinement for 24 hours a day.
Restrictive curfews such as this often count as the equivalent of partial days in prison, giving the court the latitude to consider them as time served.
As a result, the original sentence of three years and nine months, already discounted for the very long delays, dropped to just one year and three months once the man’s time on the monitor under curfew was factored in.
However, given the length of the original sentence before the discount, which is still used to calculate the man’s time in prison before he is eligible for parole, it will be just a few months before the offender is able to apply for early release.
Carter noted that a social inquiry report found that the man continued to maintain his innocence, and he had told social workers that he had forgiven the victim for making what he claimed were false accusations.
No victim impact report was given to the court because it was determined that it would be too traumatic for the girl to undergo another interview about the abuse.
