• Full Story

Crown to seek review of comedian's sex case

Print

Sat, 15 Oct 2011 2:11p.m.

He may be sent back to the District Court to be sentenced again

He may be sent back to the District Court to be sentenced again

A comedian who was not convicted of allegedly performing a sex act on his four year-old daughter could be resentenced for his crime.

The television personality pleaded guilty in March to performing an indecent act on a child, but was discharged without conviction by Judge Philippa Cunningham in August.

The judge said the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence against the four-year-old.

Auckland Now reports the Crown is seeking a judicial review of the case in the High Court at Auckland.

The Crown had to seek a judicial review of the case, because there was no sentence to appeal.

If a High Court judge decides Judge Cunningham made an error in law in discharging the man, he may be sent back to the District Court to be sentenced again.

The man has permanent name suppression to protect the victim.

Protesters picketed the court after the man was discharged.

The Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children co-ordinator Leonie Morris said at the time it was an appalling decision and the man should have at least been ordered to attend counselling.

"Without that, he might offend again," said Ms Morris.

The man got into bed with his partner and their daughter after a night out drinking.

He pulled down the girl's pyjama pants and pull-up nappy and started kissing her.

When his partner awoke he told her, "I thought it was you."

The couple have separated and the man has supervised visits with his two daughters.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

16 Oct 2011 11:22a.m.

Kevin wrote:

It has been suggested several times in the past and always rejected. The Section under the Criminal Justice Act for discharge without conviction should be removed. The section is open to abuse and frequently, in my opinion at least is. Reason it has not been cancelled by Parliament of course is that the greatest proportion of it's reciipients are of course lawyers and there is a fair share of polititians who are lawyers (on hold). This person culd have been convicted, with suppression of name to protect his Victim, but no for some strange reason he seems to be perceived to be the Victim.....! When we allow this, what does it say for our Country's moral standard. Whether Court's want the responsibility or not, they do have a role in upholding basic moral's, because that is the basis in most instances of the actual law. No killing, no stealing, no forcing one's will upon another. It all stems from there. In this case it is quite clear, the offender was protected and likewise his show!!!!

15 Oct 2011 02:57p.m.

Longtack wrote:

What a bloody travesty! Anyone with a criminal conviction could use the same excuse (of a disproportionate effect that a conviction would have on their life.) I am arguing that "if a Judge deals P, then getting convicted for it has a disproportionate effect on their life." Yep - it sure does - d u h. The other leg of this ugly beast is that diminished responsibility by way an over-indulgence of alcohol or other drug is never an excuse, and that he was affected by alcohol should not have been allowed in the Evidence. It may come to pass..... but I doubt it cos' our law-makers and Judiciary like to get wasted too. Now laugh about that comedian!!

15 Oct 2011 02:32p.m.

Hamish wrote:

Only in NZ, if he stole money or attacked some-ones wealth he would be in jail, i feel sick.