A reader isn’t happy. ¬† At all.
First, David Clarkson’s article starts with
Name suppression has been granted to protect the chances for rehabilitation and forming “appropriate adult relationships” for a repeat viewer of child abuse pornography.
Probation has even been forbidden to contact the 36-year-old¬†Christchurch¬†man’s current employer in case the inquiry leads to him losing his job.
Probation would normally ensure that his job – he’s on a 90-day probationary period at the moment – does not bring him into contact with children, and doesn’t give him access to the internet.
Christchurch District Court Judge Jane Farish said she would view it as contempt of court if probation did contact the employer. She was concerned that probation would label him as a sex offender, when he had never abused children.
“He has used child pornography because of difficulties having adult relationships,” said the judge.
If probation found that there were problems with management of the eight-month home detention sentence she imposed, they should refer the case back to her. She will regularly monitor the man’s progress.
He will continue with psychological counselling that he has already started. It will be paid for by his parents because probation has no money available for it. The man will live at his parents’ home while serving home detention. The house has no internet access.
And now, our reader’s views on this matter¬† Read more »