escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases William Paskell

William Philip Paskell

Alias

.

Offences

Rape (x4) and indecent assault (x6) of two Invercargill sisters including one under 16 between 1975 and 1981
Some of these were representative charges

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1941

Current Location

unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to just 8 years in July 2005
Unfortunately a minimum non-parole period could not be set as the offences were committed before 1993

Background
From a Southland Times story 13th July 2005
A 64-year-old Invercargill man, held up as a pillar of the Southland community, had a fall from grace yesterday when he was sentenced in the Invercargill High Court to eight years' jail for historic rape and indecent assault charges. William Philip Paskell abused two sisters during a seven-year period, raping one of them three or four times a week between 1975 and 1981. A jury found him guilty last month on 12 charges, some of them representative, including four of rape and six of indecent assault. One of the rape charges and six of the indecent assaults involved a girl aged between 12 and 16. Paskell shielded his face with his hand during the sentencing. His identity up until yesterday was protected by an interim suppression order.

Justice Hansen said Paskell had groomed the two victims for his own sexual depredation. He started out by touching their breasts then touched their vaginas and kissed them. He raped the older victim, who was a teenager older than 16, mostly while she was working for him. "It occurred up to three or four times a week for seven years." The offending against the younger girl happened during an 18-month period in 1980 and 1981 and involved digital penetration of her vagina with up to three fingers and included one incident of rape. Justice Hansen said Paskell's offending was premeditated and went on for a long time and had caused ongoing problems for the victims. "Without doubt the bulk of their problems are there because of your offending against them." Paskell offered no remorse because he was in denial. "You believe you have done nothing wrong," Justice Hansen said.

Defence lawyer Bill Dawkins conceded there were several aggravating features to Paskell's offending. The girls were known to his family and he was aware they were both vulnerable. But Paskell had also done a lot for the Southland community, he said. "He was the primary person who arranged two telethons in the community many years ago. "He has put a lot of time into many things." That included a heavy involvement with Camp Quality for children with cancer. Mr Dawkins said he could not include remorse as a mitigating factor. "I hope a sense of realisation and remorse comes later," he said. He described Paskell's poor health including heart problems, diabetes, a hernia and a bad back. Justice Hansen said the irony of the particular type of offending Paskell had committed, was that it was carried out by people who led otherwise blameless lives. "(It's a) Jekyll and Hyde type of personality that people find difficult to understand. The contradictions are apparent."

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top