R v Selby [2012] NZHC 1541 (29 June 2012)

Last Updated: 9 July 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-043-569 [2012] NZHC 1541

THE QUEEN

v

_{GRANT ALLAN SELBY}

_{CRI 2011-043-570}

THE QUEEN

v

BRUCE FRANKLIN CHARNLEY

Hearing: 29 June 2012

Counsel: C E Clarke for Crown

K Pascoe for Mr Selby

P M Keegan and A Dallison for Mr Charnley

Judgment: 29 June 2012

_{SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J}

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth Nicholsons, New Plymouth Counsel:

_{P M Keegan, New Plymouth}

R V SELBY HC NWP CRI 2011-043-569 [29 June 2012]

Introduction

[1] Grant Allan Selby and Bruce Franklin Charnley, you each appear for sentence today having pleaded or been found guilty to charges of a sexual nature.

[2] Mr Selby, on 13 and 22 February 2012, you entered pleas of guilty to two counts of sexual conduct with a young person, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. I explain the nature of the conduct later.

[3] Mr Charnley, on 22 February 2012 you pleaded guilty, following a legal ruling I had given, to a charge of sexual grooming, an offence for which there is a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. The jury found you guilty, on 27

February 2012, of being a party to Mr Selby’s sexual conduct with a young person, reflected in count 4 of the amended indictment. That too carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

[4] Each of you were found not guilty on charges involving alleged sexual violation of a female complainant aged 15 years and a male complainant aged 12 years. The events in issue occurred at or following a gathering at Mr Selby’s home on 19 February 2011.

[5] This sentencing process has been complex. I have been on the Bench now for 10 years and I think this is the most difficult sentencing exercise I have undertaken. The complexities and difficulties arise from the nature of the offending, viewed contextually in the way events unfolded on 19 February 2011, and the particular verdicts returned by the jury. Please be seated while I go through these issues in some depth. I will ask each of you to stand when I impose sentence.

Facts

[6] First, I will give a summary of relevant facts. These are taken from the evidence given at trial and telephone records obtained later. As trial Judge, I am entitled to make findings of fact for the purpose of sentencing. Whatever my own

views may be, relevant findings must be consistent with the jury verdicts. This summary has been prepared to ensure consistency with both the guilty and not guilty verdicts.

[7] Mr Selby lived on his own in close proximity to the male complainant’s home. Mr Selby had known the male complainant since about November 2010. He had assisted Mr Selby, from time to time, in undertaking tasks such as lawn mowing work and collecting eggs from chicken farmers.

[8] On a couple of occasions, in relatively close proximity to 19 February 2011, Mr Selby had asked the male complainant’s mother for permission for him to stay the night at his home. That permission was politely declined, on the basis that the mother did not know Mr Selby well enough. He was allowed, however, to visit Mr Selby during the day and to go with him to Housie one night.

[9] The male and female complainants are uncle and aunt respectively, even though the male is younger. Their mothers had each been at the male complainant’s home on the Friday night. Mr Selby had seen them. They had given permission for both the male and female complainants to go to Mr Selby’s home the next day, Saturday 19 February 2011.

[10] The two complainants arrived sometime between 10am and 10.30am. Mr Selby knew that the female complainant was a 15 year old girl and the male complainant aged 12.

[11] Mr Selby telephoned Mr Charnley on two occasions before the complainants arrived at his home. Those calls were made at 9.47am and 9.48am respectively. The calls lasted 36 seconds and 52 seconds respectively. That is enough time for some discussion. After those telephone calls, Mr Charnley came to Mr Selby’s home by foot. His time of arrival is unclear. As will become apparent it would have taken him between 30 to 40 minutes to make that journey.

[12] There is some evidence to suggest that there may have been discussion

between Mr Selby and Mr Charnley about the presence of the children at Mr Selby’s

home. I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that was so and assume for that purpose that Mr Charnley went to Mr Selby’s home without knowledge that the children would be there.

[13] During the course of the day, both the male and female complainants consumed some alcohol. While the amount imbibed is unclear, the existing supply of beer and pre-mixed bourbon and cola seems to have been exhausted sometime after 12 midday. At about 1pm, more beer and pre-mixed bourbon and cola was purchased at The Mill, in central New Plymouth. Mr Selby and the complainants had travelled together to the liquor shop, in Mr Selby’s car.

[14] Mr Charnley was present at Mr Selby’s property for some of the day. While he was there he was told that the female complainant was 15 years old. He was well aware that the male complainant was under 16 years of age. Both Mr Selby and Mr Charnley were present when some of the alcohol was consumed by the children.

[15] During the course of the day, Mr Selby and the male complainant engaged in an act of anal intercourse. On Mr Selby’s evidence that involved penetration of Mr Selby’s anus by the male complainant. Mr Selby engaged in acts of anal and vaginal intercourse with the female complainant. He also engaged in oral intercourse with the male complainant by sucking his penis. While acquitted on charges of sexual violation arising out of sexual acts that he performed on the male complainant, it is clear, on his own admission that had he been charged with sexual conduct with a boy under the age of 16 years he must have been found guilty.

[16] Mr Charnley was found to be present in the house (but not in the same room) when Mr Selby was engaging in vaginal intercourse with the female complainant. The jury accepted that Mr Charnley encouraged that activity. His role as a party is confirmed by the jury’s verdict of guilty to count 4, a count relating to the vaginal intercourse that occurred between Mr Selby and the female complainant. Of the two bases on which the Crown advanced its allegations of party involvement, I consider it most likely that the jury found that Mr Charnley was aware that Mr Selby intended to engage in sexual conduct with the female complainant and deliberately refrained

from taking any steps to prevent that from occurring, thereby encouraging Mr Selby to act as he did.

[17] Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment alleged an act of anal penetration of the female complainant by Mr Selby. Mr Charnley was not charged as a party to that offending. At the commencement of the trial, Mr Selby pleaded guilty to count 2, on the basis of the allegation of sexual connection with a young person. The jury found him not guilty on the charge of sexual violation. Before closing addresses, I declined a Crown application to add Mr Charnley as a party to that offending. Prejudice arose from an earlier inability of Mr Keegan, for Mr Charnley, to cross-examine the

complainant on Mr Charnley’s presence at the relevant time.1

[18] Nevertheless, I find that Mr Charnley was present when some of the sexual activity between Mr Selby and the two complainants was undertaken. As indicated, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was present during the whole of the sexual activities. I regard his role as a party as limited by the jury’s verdict of guilty to count 4. That approach gives the benefit of the doubt to Mr Charnley on whether the jury might have found him guilty as a party had counts 6, 7, 8 and 9 been charged in the alternative as sexual conduct on a young person.

[19] Mr Charnley did not engage in any sexual activity with either the female or male complainant, while at Mr Selby’s house. However, while there, Mr Charnley and the female complainant discussed the possibility of Mr Charnley having vaginal intercourse with her. He declined because she was having her period. In my view, that is the only reason that sexual connection did not take place between Mr Charnley and the female complainant. It is a view founded on the combined effect of Mr Charnley’s DVD statement to the Police and the evidence of the female complainant.

[20] There was some debate, at trial, over the extent of the children’s intoxication, as a result of what they drank, before and after Mr Selby took them to The Mill to buy more. The female complainant acknowledged in evidence that she had

_{exaggerated the amount of alcohol that she had consumed at Mr Selby’s house and}

1 R v Selby and Charnley [2012] NZHC 270 (reasons for ruling (No. 3)).

had lied about drinking alcohol when she later went to Mr Charnley’s home. I consider the same degree of exaggeration applied in respect of the male complainant. The condition in which he was found by his mother at the end of the day is not consistent with the appearance of a heavily intoxicated 12 year old boy.

[21] At a time proximate to the vaginal intercourse between Mr Selby and the female complainant, Mr Charnley and she discussed the possibility that he might arrange for her to have a lesbian encounter with a woman known to him. After that discussion, Mr Charnley left Mr Selby’s property and walked to his home. He telephoned the female complainant, who was still at Mr Selby’s home. That was my view on the evidence given at trial. It has since been confirmed by the timing of a call made from Mr Charnley’s home telephone to Mr Selby’s home, extracted from telephone records. It does not matter whether Mr Selby answered the telephone and put Mr Charnley onto the female complainant or whether she answered the telephone herself.

[22] As a result of this telephone call, the female complainant was told that a woman was available at Mr Charnley’s home, with whom she could engage in sexual activity. The female complainant agreed to meet Mr Charnley, so that she might engage in some form of activity with the woman.

[23] Mr Charnley and the female complainant met at a bakery, approximately one half of the distance from Mr Selby’s home to his. They walked together to Mr Charnley’s house, where the female complainant met Ms Krystal Tyler. After some initial small-talk, Krystal and the female complainant entered Mr Charnley’s bedroom and engaged in sexual activity. During part of this time, Mr Charnley was present. He helped the female complainant to use a vibrator on Ms Tyler. The complainant left Mr Charnley’s home sometime later.

[24] Mr Selby’s knowledge of the location to which the female complainant may have gone is confirmed by two addresses that he gave to the male complainant’s sister-in-law, when she and the male complainant’s mother were making inquiries about the female complainant’s whereabouts. The two addresses were the homes of Mr Charnley and Ms Tyler respectively. Ms Tyler’s name was also given to the

sister-in-law by either the male complainant or Mr Selby. As the male complainant had never met Ms Tyler, he must have been given the name by Mr Selby, if it were he who told his sister-in-law.

[25] Mr Charnley must have left Mr Selby’s property no later than about 1.30–

2.30pm in order to meet Ms Tyler at his home sometime between 2pm and 3pm. It is common ground that it would take about 30 to 40 minutes to walk from Mr Charnley’s to Mr Selby’s home.

[26] Ms Tyler’s evidence is that she arrived at about 2pm. Mr Charnley made his first telephone call to Mr Selby at 3.25pm, a call that lasted nearly 7 minutes. Thus, the earliest that the female complainant is likely to have arrived at his property was a little after 4pm.

[27] The last of three telephone calls made by Mr Selby to Mr Charnley later that afternoon was made at 5.42pm. It is likely that the female complainant left Mr Charnley’s home shortly after that call was made. That is consistent with a stay of about 90 minutes. It is also consistent with the evidence of the male complainant’s mother and his sister-in-law about the time they went to Mr Selby’s property to locate the female complainant.

[28] Contrary to the Crown’s allegations, Mr Selby did not threaten to kill or harm the male complainant. Nor, did he prevent him from leaving his house, during the events of 19 February 2011.

Sentencing issues

[29] For different reasons, each of you must be considered as a candidate for a sentence of preventive detention. The purpose of such a sentence is to protect the community by detaining an offender indefinitely. The protection is against the risk of further sexual offending; not just child sexual offending. If preventive detention were imposed, I am required to fix a minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve before you become eligible for parole. On release, you would remain subject to life parole.

[30] To enable me to consider whether that sentence is required, I have obtained reports from two health assessors, Dr Dean (a psychiatrist) and Dr Bellve-Wack (a psychologist). Dr Dean has also given evidence today. Their reports were originally prepared for sentencing on 8 May 2012. Following discussions with counsel I decided to adjourn that sentencing hearing to obtain further reports from the two health assessors, more detailed information about the assessment tools they used to assess risk of reoffending and other information to assist me to make my own assessment of risk.

[31] As I have indicated, the purpose of the sentence of preventive detention “is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members”.2 When considering whether to impose the sentence I am required to take into account:3

(a) any pattern of serious offending disclosed by the offender's history;

and

(b) the seriousness of the harm to the community caused by the offending; and

(c) information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future; and

(d) the absence of, or failure of, efforts by the offender to address the cause or causes of the offending; and

(e) the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.

[32] An assessment of risk, for preventive detention purposes, is one for me as the presiding Judge to make. I am guided by the assistance received from the health

2 _{Sentencing Act 2002, s 87(1).}

3 Ibid, s 87(4).

assessors’ reports.4 Assessment of risk carries with it a corresponding obligation to evaluate the way in which risk might be managed.

[33] In making an assessment of the appropriate sentence to impose, the circumstances of each of you are very different. For that reason, I consider the sentencing options independently. I deal first with Mr Selby and then with Mr Charnley.

Grant Allan Selby

(a) Personal circumstances

[34] Mr Selby, at the time of the offending you were aged 47 years. As a result of suffering from anoxia at birth you have experienced cognitive and learning difficulties. You struggled at school with both reading and writing. You remain largely illiterate.

[35] While you have no history of psychiatric illness it is clear that the circumstances of your birth have led to intellectual impairment. This means you lack the ability of many in society to understand fully the consequences of your actions.

[36] In the context of the present offending, I am told that you suffered sexual abuse at the age of about 15 years. You have described to Dr Dean the circumstances in which that occurred. It involved grooming and the supply of alcohol. Apart from that, I will not go into detail. What is apparent, however, is that that offending seems to mirror, at least to some extent, the offending on which you appear for sentence.

[37] The experts agree that you have no history of sexually deviancy. Nor is there any evidence of a pattern of sexual drive towards children. Having said that you have been involved in a variety of different sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual. Based on the evidence I heard at trial, that sexual activity extended

_{to both a boy of 12 years and a girl of 15.}

4 R v Exley [2007] NZCA 393 at para [46].

[38] You appear to have a desire to avoid any temptation to engage in future sexual relations with children. The experts consider that you will require some treatment to reach that goal. The problems at present are your lack of insight into the nature of the offending in which you engaged, your complete lack of empathy for both the complainants with whom you engaged in sexual conduct and your inability to understand why it would be inappropriate for you to be released into the community to live with a man who also has a history of sexual offending against children.

[39] Because your cognitive impairment is the cause of the lack of insight, I do have some sympathy for your plight. But the most chilling part of the trial, for me, was listening to the matter of fact and emotionless way in which you described what happened with both the female and male complainant in terms that made it clear you had no understanding at all of why your actions were wrong and the impact of them on the complainants.

[40] It is those features which led me to the view that you might be a significant risk of reoffending in this way in the future. That is why I am considering a sentence of preventive detention. The unusual aspect of your sentencing is the fact that, while mental impairment is usually regarded as a mitigating factor on the basis that it suggests diminished culpability, it has the very opposite effect when assessing risk of similar offending in the future because of the lack of understanding of both the wrongness of the actions and their consequences on the complainants.

(b) Health assessors reports and evidence

[41] You have been examined on two occasions by a psychiatrist and a psychologist respectively. The most important feature of the assessors report is their risk assessment of the likelihood that you will reoffend in this way in the future. Dr Bellve-Wack’s assessment is that the risk is “moderately low as long as [you have] a supportive structure”. Dr Dean, today, has expressed a similar view. Both have expressed concerns about your suggestibility and the increase in risk when you are surrounded by people who condone or support sexual offending. This is why your suggestion of living with another person who has a history of child sexual

offending is, to use Dr Bellve-Wack’s words, “inherently flawed”. It reflects the very points I have already made about your lack of understanding of the nature and consequence of your actions.

[42] Dr Bellve-Wack considers that you need treatment to assist in both rehabilitation and, more importantly, to minimise the risk of further offending. That, she suggests, might be best undertaken through programmes designed for someone with your intellectual limitations. Dr Bellve-Wack has commented on the assistance that pro-social support from your family could provide in reducing that risk.

[43] Dr Dean has expressed similar views. He has reiterated your poor insight into the offending and your lack of perception of why living with a convicted child sex offender is inappropriate and the need for treatment programmes to be undertaken in an endeavour to prevent reoffending. Dr Dean concluded his first report by saying:

I note that Mr Selby has not received treatment for sexual behaviour or sexual offending. He does have cognitive difficulty with a rigidity of thinking as described. This rigidity of thinking may assist him achieve his future goal to strictly avoid children, but will not necessarily modify his sexual attitudes. I would recommend that he be considered for a sexual offenders programme to minimise his risk of re-offending. This would need to include an element of sexual education and cognitive therapy to assist Mr Selby to adjust his cognitive distortions which support his offending behaviour. Given his cognitive difficulties this may be best provided by a psychologist with experience in managing offenders with an intellectual disability or low cognitive functioning.

(c) Family support

[44] Ms Pascoe, on your behalf, has provided a helpful affidavit from members of your family who are close to you. They were the people at whose home you resided while you were on remand for trial, on terms involving electronically monitored bail. That period lasted approximately 11 months.

[45] There is no dispute that during the time you were on bail you did not breach your of bail terms. Nor did you commit any other offences. Your family members provided strict rules with which you were required to comply in their home. They believe your best chance of being reintegrated into society and maintaining a low

risk of reoffending would be for you to attend and complete a programme run by Taranaki SAFER Family Centre. Mr Bob Stevens has corresponded with Ms Pascoe and confirmed a programme could be specifically tailored to meet your needs in light of your intellectual disability. Such an approach would be consistent with that recommended by the health assessors.

[46] I am satisfied from their affidavit that your family members are people who understand the need for children to be protected from actions of the type in which you engaged and they have consistently brought that home to you. The fact that you were able to live with them in circumstances that managed risks of reoffending is something that gives me confidence that could happen again.

(d) Sentencing options

[47] There are three sentencing options open to me:

(a) To impose, as Ms Pascoe submits I should, a finite sentence to reflect your culpability for the particular offending for which you have been convicted. Necessarily, given the jury verdicts, that term would not be lengthy.

(b) To impose a sentence of preventive detention. That would enable you to receive treatment. Imposition of a minimum term of five years would give you an incentive to respond to treatment appropriately as once the Parole Board was satisfied that risks to the community could be adequately managed, you would be eligible for release after that five year period. From society’s point of view, the fact that you would still remain subject to parole for the rest of your life could also increase its confidence that your risk of reoffending had been minimised.

(c) To adjourn your sentencing until later this year, on terms that will provide me with better information as to which of the other sentences should be imposed. That could be done by remanding you in custody

until the beginning of August, when your family members return from overseas and thereafter remanding you on terms involving electronically monitored bail which to allow you to undertake a treatment programme of the type recommended by Mr Stevens. On receipt of a report from Mr Stevens I could assess better your risks of reoffending in determining the ultimate sentence to be imposed.

[48] I have decided that an adjournment on terms is the most appropriate approach. That will give me better information as to the level of risk that you are to young people. In turn, that will help me to determine whether a finite term of imprisonment or preventive detention is the appropriate sentencing option. I make it clear to you, Mr Selby, that if you do not respond well to this programme it is almost inevitable that you will be sentenced to preventive detention. In those circumstances, I do not intend to discuss issues relating to a finite sentence. I will consider sentencing afresh later this year, in light of the additional information from Mr Stevens.

[49] Given compliance with the terms on which you were held on electronically monitored bail pending trial and my confidence in your family members to ensure that you do not breach bail, I feel I can safely remand you on strict terms of bail while the programme is undertaken. I will pronounce the formal terms of the adjournment when I conclude sentencing.

Bruce Franklin Charnley

(a) Personal circumstances

[50] Mr Charnley, at the time of the offending you were aged 49 years. It is clear that you had a difficult upbringing during which time you were in foster care at times. There is evidence to suggest that you suffered sexual abuse at the hands of an “uncle” whom your mother left with you to babysit.

[51] After your time in foster care you were sent to a Boys’ Home before being admitted to the adolescent unit at Sunnyside Hospital in 1975. That admission was

precipitated by disruptive and aggressive behaviour. Dr Dean reports that while clinical records do not specify a psychiatric diagnosis, they reveal that “personality and functional difficulties were evident”. It is clear that your dysfunctional personality has continued into your adult life. Over the following 20–30 years you spent a not inconsiderable period in prison following a variety of offences involving physical violence, dishonesty, traffic and sexual offending.

(b) Health assessors reports and evidence

[52] Not all of your prior sexual offending involves people under the age of 16 years. An indecent assault charge arising out of an incident in 1979 involved a male over 16 years. As Mr Keegan says, that was at a time before homosexual activity was legalised. You have a conviction for indecent assault on a female under 12 years in 1986, a charge of indecent assault on a female under 12 and one of unlawful sexual connection on a female under 12 resulted in convictions and sentences of imprisonment. During your period of incarceration you were charged with other historical charges, two of which involved either sexual connection or indecent acts with a girl under the age of 12 years. The most recent offence was in 2000. That was one of indecent assault on a female over 16 years.

[53] While in custody in the 1990’s you attended the Kia Marama programme. That programme has had much success in reducing risks of sexual reoffending. However, despite the issue having been raised for the purpose of sentencing I have not seen a copy of the report prepared after the programme.

[54] Following your conviction in 2000, you attended the STOP programme. That is something that would have reinforced the Kia Marama strategies. You then had one-to-one counselling in 2003 to the same effect. Despite that you offended last year against the female complainant.

[55] Dr Dean, while accepting that an assessment of your risk of reoffending “is quite complex as there are mixed features of clinical risk” has expressed the view that you have gained knowledge and understanding of strategies to keep yourself safe, but you have not always been able to use those strategies effectively. He

suggests that you might benefit from further assessment and treatment. Dr Dean concluded his first report, from which he did not depart significantly in his second, with the observation that “this treatment should focus on your attitudes towards sexual behaviour and assist you to better manage situations that may involve inappropriate sexual behaviour by you or others”. He modified that view a little today. He took the view that for risk management purposes you should be assessed as at the upper end of the band between low and moderate risk of reoffending. Such a risk needs to be managed by a degree of supervision and treatment.

(c) Analysis

[56] The single charge of indecent assault to which you entered a plea of guilty in

August 2000 was representative in nature, covering events between 1 July and 31

August 2000. The victim was a female aged 17 or 18 years. The activity involved fondling the victim on her bottom and, on occasion, between her legs. It also involved making suggestive comments to her about her legs, bottom and breasts.

[57] I mention this because it occurred not long after you underwent the Kia Marama programme. While I accept that the programme is relevant to child sexual abuse, the strategies identified are relevant to any form of sexual abuse, as Dr Dean indicated today. In assessing risk for the purpose of preventive detention, I am entitled to have regard to the risk of sexual offending generally, as well as that specific to young persons.

[58] I am satisfied that you have the ability to understand the strategies learnt from the Kia Marama and other programmes. I am not satisfied that you have the ability, in the sense of self-discipline or willingness to apply them.

[59] There are two significant predictive risks involved in my assessment of whether you should be sentenced to preventive detention. One is that your sexual offending has not ceased. It is likely, in the absence of a successful intervention, to continue. The other is your inability or unwillingness to apply strategies learnt in the past. Both are suggestive of a significant and ongoing risk to members of the

community of sexual offending. In that regard, past behaviour must be the best indicator of future behaviour.

[60] To summarise in terms of the factors I am required to take into account: there is a pattern of serious offending which has spanned a number of years despite the fact that there has been limited offending over the last decade or so; the seriousness of the harm that was caused to the victim in this case was severe; there is information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future; the inability or unwillingness for you to address the cause or causes of your offending by applying the strategies learnt at programmes is of concern.

[61] The principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable, if this provides adequate protection for society, is largely inapplicable because the finite sentence that would otherwise have been imposed would be too short. I have concluded that a sentence of preventive detention is necessary to protect the community from you. In my view, you pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.

[62] I mention in relation to the finite sentence that on the basis of the authorities I have been referred, I would have imposed a sentence of something in the order of three years imprisonment.

Result

[63] Please stand.

[64] Bruce Franklin Charnley, on each charge on which you were convicted you are sentenced to preventive detention, with a minimum term of five years.

[65] Grant Allan Selby, your sentencing is adjourned to 10am on 18 December

2012 on the following terms:5

(a) You shall be assessed for and undertake a programme of the type described in Mr Stevens letter of 24 May 2012 to Ms Pascoe. She shall keep the Crown informed of the final form of the programme and of your progress on a monthly basis. Those reports shall be provided at times to be agreed between Ms Clarke and Ms Pascoe.

(b) If the Crown is not satisfied that you are undertaking the programme in good faith, it may apply to have your sentencing brought forward. I will rule on any application that the Crown may make in that regard.

(c) Mr Stevens shall file and serve a report on the programme and your response to it, whether completed or not, by 5pm on Friday 7

December 2012.

(d) Further submissions by the Crown and Ms Pascoe shall be filed and served on or before 13 December 2012.

[66] You shall be remanded in custody until 10am on Friday 3 August 2012. You shall be met at New Plymouth Prison by the member members who have sworn the affidavit of 22 May 2012. They shall take you immediately to their home address to be met by a probation officer and electronic bail assessor. You will remain on bail at

that address until sentence at 10am on 18 December 20126 on the following

conditions:

(a) You shall reside at the named address 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

(b) You shall be subject to electronic monitoring at that address.

(c) You are to present himself at the door if called upon by a member of the police, at any time.

(d) You shall not contact or attempt to contact or communicate directly or indirectly with either of the complainants, namely the male or female complainant.

(e) You shall not contact or attempt to contact or communicate, directly or indirectly with [a named individual].

(f) You shall not consume alcohol and/or illicit drugs and you are to submit to a passive breath test if required by the Police;

(g) Save in an emergency, you are not to be absent from the electronic monitoring bail address apart from attending scheduled Court appearances, medical and legal appointments and for treatment by Mr Stevens. Approval to attend any of those events shall be obtained from the EM bail assessor, at least 24 hours beforehand.

(h) You shall be accompanied by one of the two family members who made the affidavit whenever away from the bail address for approved appointments.

(i) Otherwise standard conditions for electronically monitored bail shall apply.

[67] Please understand Mr Selby, that you have not yet been sentenced. If you do not respond to this treatment programme, it is likely that you will be sentenced to preventive detention. If you do respond well, it is likely that you will still serve a term of imprisonment and be released on terms that can manage any risk of reoffending that are set by the Parole Board. The future is in your hands.

_{[68] Stand down please.}

P R Heath J

Addendum

[69] Owing to a misunderstanding on my part at the time of sentencing I gave an incorrect date for the adjourned sentencing of Mr Selby. The remands will be until

10am on Wednesday 20 December 2012. The further hearing will commence at that

_time.

P R Heath J