Exclusive Brethren member appeals sex abuse conviction

A church member jailed for historical sex offences against his young nephew has had three heart attacks in prison.

The sentence of the Exclusive Brethren man, now in his 80s, should have been less to take account of factors like his failing health, his lawyer said in the Court of Appeal at Wellington last week.

The man, whose name was suppressed, has been in jail since early July after being sentenced to two years and four months for 22 sex offences against his nephew about 50 years ago.

He appealed against his conviction and sentence. The three appeal judges reserved their decision.

A jury in the Blenheim District Court heard in June how the man played ‘‘games’’ with his nephew, aged between 7 and 9, sometimes in the shower, when he was babysitting in the 1960s.

But at the appeal lawyers for the man said evidence raised doubts about the complainant’s account, including whether the house he was speaking of even had a shower.

The defence said it should have been allowed to call evidence about a second man the complainant had named when he went to the police about his uncle in 2012.

The other accusation, made against a former teacher, suggested the complainant may have transferred memories about one person to the other.

Lawyer Chris Tennet said the man’s dangerous health condition meant the charges should have been stopped before the trial took place.

It also meant it would have been unwise for him to give evidence because of the extra stress, and limited his options at the trial.

The man’s other lawyer, Nick McKessar, said the case raised the possibility of prejudice against the Exclusive Brethren church.

The complainant was out of the church and the jury may have thought some of the evidence was a ‘‘closing of ranks’’ against the complainant.

After the man was convicted, he spent the weekend in hospital because of his medical condition.

Since being in prison, he has had three heart attacks.

McKessar said the man should have received home detention.

The judge was wrong to send the man to prison when a doctor said his life hung in the balance if he was under stress, he said.

Crown lawyer, Mark Lillico, said Parliament had not set time limits for hearing historical claims of sexual abuse, and separately two judges had decided the charges against the man could proceed.

The jury had heard the evidence about the surrounding circumstances the defence said made the complainant’s account unreliable, and the jury must have still believed the complainant.

The man was found guilty of 22 charges, each with a maximum of 10 years’ jail, against a vulnerable child over a two-year period. The sentence had to be judged against the seriousness of those charges, Lillico said.

The district court was told about the man’s heart condition and that he was often cared for in hospital.

The judge was not wrong to have decided against giving a compassionate sentence, Lillico said.