Offender DatabasesViolent and Sexual Offender Databases |
Victims MemorialA memorial to those murdered in NZ in the last twenty years
Arabic language summary | 
Chinese language summary |
Korean language summary 0900 SAFE NZ (7233 69)
EDUCATE . ADVOCATE . SUPPORT
| SITEMAP(3)Where to find everything here | FAQFrequently Asked Questions | New!New on this site lately |
escalating violence in our community
Become a member of the
Sensible Sentencing Trust
Hendrika Margaret Pijper
Unlawful sexual connection with a 13 year old Christchurch boy from 1991
Also theft of a substantial sum of money
.
.
none known
Born 1956
At large
Sentenced to 5 years by the High Court in August 2003
Sentenced to 12 months by the District Court in February 2011
Background
Christchurch Court News story here
Christchurch Press story here
From the Christchurch Press 15th August 2003
Aaron Gilmore sees some justice in the five-year jail term handed down to Hendrika Margaret Shaskey, the woman convicted of sexually violating him from when he was 13. "It's the same length of time that it went on for me," he commented after Justice Panckhurst sentenced the woman in the Christchurch High Court. Interim name suppression was yesterday lifted on 47-year-old Shaskey, and on the young man she abused. As the victim of sexual offending, Mr Gilmore had automatic suppression, but he asked Justice Panckhurst to lift it.
"I asked for that so that other victims will know that they don't have to live with the shame of it. If they can seek help through my story, then just use it," he said. The pair met through a shared interest in ballroom dancing - Dance Sport - and Shaskey was convicted last month after a three- day trial heard about her "grooming" the boy with kissing, touching, masturbation, and finally full sexual intercourse and oral sex after he turned 13. Shaskey was crying before the sentencing session.
However, she sat calmly as Justice Panckhurst pronounced the sentence for the offending which she still denies. He did not ask her to stand as the sentence was passed. As she began her sentence, Mr Gilmore said that in the end he did not care whether she received final name suppression. "I don't wish her any ill feelings, but she needs to deal with what she has done," he said. "I have handed back the shame. That's what this process was about," Mr Gilmore said. "I got sick of looking in the mirror and going `yuck'."
Defence counsel Tony Garrett told the court that his defence had been limited by Shaskey's continuing denial of the offending. It was clear that the offending had had a significant effect on Mr Gilmore, but he said the period since being charged had also involved psychological assistance for his client. He noted that since the trial, Mr Gilmore had been willing to be interviewed by the media and had spoken in depth about matters that most people regarded as deeply personal. He said Shaskey had no previous convictions and had a reputation as a good worker. Her job would be held open for her when she was released.
He did not seek to continue the interim suppression order, but he asked for a significant "discount" in her prison term because of the publicity that the case had attracted and the effects that could have on her in prison. Justice Panckhurst said Shaskey was 35 when she began a sexual relationship with the 13-year-old boy, who was about to begin high school. Photographs from that time - produced in evidence - showed his physical immaturity. "Over time, he became ensnared in a relationship from which he could not escape until he was 18 years of age," said His Honour.
The victim impact report spoke of Mr Gilmore "living with a huge secret" during those years. He was effectively estranged from his family, and separated from boys and girls of his own age. He felt dominated, and he felt like an object. The relationship had led to severe depression, problems with personal relationships, and even material losses. "In short this unnatural relationship in which he became entangled has blighted several important developmental years of his life," said Justice Panckhurst. He said the most charitable thing he could say about Shaskey's continued denials was that it had become "fixed" because of the straight denials she made in her original statement to the police.
But he said: "There is no doubt that anyone who heard the complainant's evidence could regard it as anything other than compelling." "I am equally satisfied that - this relationship aside - you are a good person," he said. "By virtue of these convictions, you have fallen mightily from grace. "Your good name and reputation has been lost. Your sexual and relationship exploitation of this young man has been very publicly exposed. That is a significant punishment, but not one that is recognised in many quarters of the community." He adopted a six-year starting point for the sentencing, and reduced it by one year for Shaskey's previous good character and for the impacts she had already suffered. Jane Farish appeared as Crown prosecutor. She had placed written sentencing submissions before the court.
LAW LESS PUNISHING FOR FEMALES
Convicted paedophile Hendrika Margaret Shaskey would have faced a significantly longer jail sentence had she been male and her victim female. Shaskey was sentenced to five years jail in the High Court in the Christchurch yesterday for the sexual violation of Aaron Gilmore over a five-year period from when he was aged 13. An anomaly in the law means a female paedophile cannot face a charge of sexual violation by rape, which is reserved for male paedophiles acting against females. If a defendant is found guilty of this charge after a defended trial, the sentencing judge must set the starting point of the sentence at eight years jail.
A woman can only be charged with sexual violation against a male, which has no set starting point for sentence, and is "something of a moving scale", Crown prosecutor Jane Farish said. Justice Panckhurst set a starting point of six years for Shaskey and gave her a discount of one year for her previous good character and because of the impacts she had already suffered. Commissioner for Children, Roger McClay said the gender disparity needed an urgent review. "The sooner (the Government) gets on and makes the law relevant to what's happening in the world today, the better," Mr McClay said. A spokesman for Justice Minister Phil Goff said new legislation coming before Parliament later this year would introduce "gender neutrality" to sex offending. The changes in legislation are part of a proposed Sex Offences Bill already approved by the Cabinet.