‘Standing up for the little girl inside me’ - brother jailed for abuse

Thursday, 18 June 2026

Telling of her experiences was an opportunity “to finally stand up for the little girl inside… who never got a chance”.

A woman who was repeatedly raped and sexually abused by her older brother throughout her childhood appeared via audio-visual link at Hamilton District Court on Wednesday to tell the court about the impact of his offending.

She spoke of events she would “have to carry my whole life like a shadow”, describing flashbacks, hyper-vigilance and a fear of almost every man she encountered, years after the abuse ended.

The Waikato man was just 12 years old when he began repeatedly raping and sexually abusing his two younger sisters.

His horrifying pattern of manipulation and victimisation was carried out under the cynical guise of childhood games such as “cops and robbers” and “hide and seek” and continued for the following five years.

Now in his 30s, he was earlier this year found guilty by a Hamilton District Court jury of nine charges of rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and sexual connection with a child.

The offending warranted a sentence of 12 years in jail, imposed when he appeared again in court on Wednesday.

It was also offending that he continued into adulthood against other victims. The man now has a number of convictions for sexual crimes, including rape, against his name.

However, that name cannot be revealed. Because he was a child offender the man is subject to statutory suppressions preventing his identification - and this includes news reports that link to his other offending.

He also cannot be named without it leading to the identification of his two younger siblings.

At the man’s sentencing on Wednesday, one of the two sisters appeared in court via audio-visual link and spoke of the events that she would “have to carry my whole life like a shadow”.

She had been aged between 10 and 14 at the time and, although years had now passed, still found herself suffering flashbacks.

She was sometimes triggered by things like television shows - particularly anything that portrayed children playing “cops and robbers”-style games.

“Maybe if I had spoken out sooner things would be different … How do you heal when your abuser has walked free for most of his life?”

Along with constant feelings of shame and disgust, she was now hyper-vigilant and fearful of almost every man she encountered, and was constantly formulating plans for escape from most situations she found herself in.

She was also now a mother herself and extremely protective of her daughter.

Judge Gordon Matenga thanked the woman for her courage in both giving evidence during the trial, and also in delivering her victim impact statement.

“I hope it can in some way help you move forward.”

Many details of the man’s offending against his sisters cannot be reported, however as a child he formed a particular dislike of the older of the two girls, who he perceived to be their parents’ favourite.

As Judge Matenga put it, “you did what you could to torment her”.

The defendant would blackmail and threaten his sister to ensure she was complicit.

The offending only stopped when she moved out of the family home, shortly before her 15th birthday.

The younger sister was aged 9 or 10 when he offended against her.

Given the defendant committed his crimes at an age when he would have appeared in the Youth Court, the judge was obliged to give consideration to the likely penalty the offending would have attracted under the Oranga Tamariki Act.

However, he also noted “it has been a persistent pattern extending into adulthood”.

Crown prosecutor Kasey Dillon had asked for a starting point for the sentence of 17 years in jail, and a minimum period of incarceration (MPI) of 50% of the final duration.

Judge Matenga noted that the man still continued to deny the offending or accept his wrongdoing.

Taking a starting point of 16 years in jail, he allowed for a deduction of 25% to reflect the man’s youth at the time of his offending.

There were no other mitigating features, he said.

Judge Matenga opted to not impose an MPI, as “it is more appropriate to leave it to the parole board, who will have a raft of professionals to guide them.”