September 2, 2011

"Hands on Dad" gets off Sexual Abuse Conviction

So let me see if I have this straight: A man comes home pissed, flops into bed with his wife. His four-year-old child crawls into bed with them. He claims to be completely incoherent. So much so, he pulls her nappy down and sexually assaults her. Wife wakes up and rightly asks WTF he thinks he is doing. 

His response? "I thought it was you."

If I was the Kid's lawyer, I'd want to ask him these questions: 

  1. Does your wife frequently wear nappies to bed? 
  2. If you were incoherent enough to not know it was your child, then how do you explain being coherent enough to know it was a nappy in the first place?
  3. How tall is your wife? In other words, she's not a midget right, not someone who may have shrunk a tad in the hours after your 2009 Christmas party?

If I was the NZ public - oh hang on, I am - I'd want to ask the Judge Cunningham this:

  1. Since when is "being funny" a reasonable defense to child sex abuse? 
  2. Why let this child abuser go free just because he is a "talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we need lots of it." Wrong! What we need Judge is a ZERO TOLERANCE towards child abuse of any kind.
  3. What experience does she have of the long term effects of child abuse especially as she justifies her 'no conviction' status on the basis that "the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence." 
  4. Don't you think you demonstrate your complete naivety about the effects of child sex abuse by being swayed by the police interview whereby the child wants to "see and be with her father again"? What did you expect the four year-old to say? String him up?
  5. Why did you not take into consideration the police and Crown recommendation which was "while we were not asking for a prison sentence, a discharge without conviction was not in the ballpark and, in fact "it entirely undercuts the deterrent aspect. There is effectively no sentence."

To the mother of the child, I'd like to say this:

  1. Good on you for reporting him despite what your heart may have been telling you to do. That takes balls and I respect you for that.
  2. Slightly tacky to say the offender was "...loving and hands on." It's kind of what got him in trouble in the first place.  
Rightly so, a growing group of Organisations condemn the Judge's decision including Barnados, The Sensible Sentencing Trust (, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help, ECPAT Child Alert, and NARK.

Links to the story:


  1. Too right! Bloody disgusting! He's not that well known a comedian but for anyone interested, he certainly doesn't have dreadlocks...

  2. As a victim of child abuse and as someone who NEVER saw justice either, this is disgusting and just the reason why some of us NEVER tell our stories! whats the point when they get away with it! This is another let down to all NZ people who beleive in justice! seems to me someone was payed off! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >:(

  3. and he likes his juice with PULP

  4. Yeah I didn't know him, not high profile but even if he was high profile, who cares?? For goodness sake, ditto to all the above, how the hell has he got away with it, won't be long till he is named and shamed, surely!!!!!

  5. I am left speechless over this ... what are we showing to our unfound child abusers, that if you are known, loving and `hands on` you can walk from your offenses?? Good on his wife, as you said to laying charges ... definately would be a hard thing to do!

  6. Disgusting. The Judge needs her head read.

  7. I really wish I knew the name of this person. I watch quite a bit of NZ comedy routines on TV and whatnot but I'm shying away from doing that as I don't want to be unknowingly enjoying the comedy of someone who sexually assaulted a minor!! So sadly I'm choosing not to watch anymore NZ comedy sketches/shows until this person can be named. I feel bad for the innocent NZ comedians that miss out on me watching them, but I couldn't handle knowing that I laughed at the jokes of a pedophile.


  9. wtf!!!!!!!im male and have bn totally "incoherant" during my drinking and druging much so that i did things i cant remember and that were totally against my morals BUT inever expected nor would i ever expect to not recieve punishment for my the crime , do the time.drunk drivers that crash into innocent people dont get off because they make people laugh. isay again, wtf!!!!!!

  10. That has go to be quite possibly the most mind blowingly STUPID decision from a Judge in the history of stupid decisions - both the actual decision & the reason. The kid was 4 of course she bloody remembers!


    One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." 5 Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

    A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: "…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7 The Talmud also says, "A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)." 8 Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

    Sex at Three Years and One Day

    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai's dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

    R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)

    A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)

    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

    It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

  12. Larry....... and this relates to NZ and the post in what way?

  13. I can't believe a woman judge refused to throw the book at him for destroying his little daughter's life. What a crock of shit.
    Nobody abuses children, ever and if they do then they have to pay the price.


For troubleshooting, email: