He was charged again in January 2015 after two public health nurses spotted him grabbing the buttocks of a 9-year-old boy he had met on a footpath a month earlier.
A district court judge ordered a sentence of two years and three months, but it was later reduced on appeal to nine months’ home detention.
Another 9-year-old boy was victimised in August 2017 after he became separated from his aunt at a Briscoes store and was approached by the defendant. CCTV recorded as Wells touched the boy on and off for about 45 minutes, over his clothes.
He was sentenced for that charge in 2018 to six months’ home detention after the judge took into account the 10 months he’d already spent in custody.
Then, in June 2021, he responded to a Facebook community post and offered to tutor a 12-year-old boy – touting his past teaching experience but not mentioning he was on the sex offender registry.
The boy’s mother told Wells his services were no longer needed after a tutoring session in which he tickled the victim.
But he later showed up twice at the family’s home uninvited under the guise of asking about the child’s schoolwork. On both occasions, he groped the child’s bottom.
Lewis Wells was sentenced in the High Court at Auckland. Photo / RNZ, Simon Rogers
He was sentenced by the High Court at Auckland in April 2023 to one year and four months’ imprisonment for two counts of indecent assault. He also pleaded guilty to failing to comply with sex offender reporting obligations resulting from his secret Facebook account.
Later that year, the Department of Corrections went back to the High Court at Auckland, asking that Wells be subjected to interim and extended supervision orders. Both were approved.
Extended supervision orders allow authorities to impose parole-like conditions, including curfews and GPS monitoring, for up to 10 years after a sentence has been completed. It’s a measure reserved for high-risk, long-term offenders in an effort to reduce recidivism.
In a report prepared for the hearings, clinical psychologist Charlotte Gibson noted that Wells tended to reoffend about every two or three years, “typically coinciding with him completing his community sentence”.
It turned out to be a prescient prediction.
Wells’ most recent sentencing was in January, when Judge Rebecca Guthrie ordered him to serve 11 months’ imprisonment for having breached his extended supervision order in May and July last year when he had unauthorised contact with minors.
On the first occasion, he showed up at a neighbour’s house where an 8-year-old boy was riding a scooter in the driveway. The boy’s mother came out to speak with Wells after the child reported a stranger had arrived.
“During the conversation, Mr Wells engaged with and focused his attention on the boy, including asking how old he was and what part of the house he lived in,” court documents state.
“Mr Wells said he had noticed children in the property’s swimming pool. He wanted to come inside and view part of the property but was not invited to do so.”
Two months later, he arrived at another stranger’s home, where 6- and 10-year-old siblings lived, and told their mother he was interested in purchasing a nearby cottage.
“As the mother was responding, Mr Wells interjected by telling one of the daughters that he had seen her jumping on the trampoline,” court documents state.
“He bent down to her level and smiled at her. He then placed his foot in the doorway and entered, walked around and made comments about the view. Mr Wells was in the house for about five minutes before leaving.”
During a hearing in March, Wells’ lawyer argued that the district court judge erred in not allowing him to have permanent suppression for the latest charges due to extreme hardship. Naming him, it was argued, could cause a hostile living environment and make it more difficult to comply with his extended supervision order.
Judge Guthrie said there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude he’d face extreme hardship. But even if it was made out, she said she’d decline the request anyway, given the public’s interest in being able to identify him. Judge Guthrie did, however, suppress his address.
Justice Simon Mount. Photo / Dean Purcell
Justice Simon Mount, in his appellate decision, agreed Judge Guthrie had taken the correct approach.
“I agree there is a risk that knowledge in the community of Mr Wells’ breaches may result in heightened community concern and potentially adverse comments on social media or elsewhere,” he wrote. “It is logical that Mr Wells may experience some wariness or even hostility in the community.”
But there was “nothing concrete” suggesting his safety was at risk or that the discomfort for him would equate to extreme hardship, Justice Mount added.
“The community has a proper interest in knowing that a person has breached a court order in place to protect children from offending,” he concluded.
“A degree of heightened awareness and concern is understandable and appropriate.
“Community vigilance can support the purposes of the extended supervision regime, and the value of open justice is high in this context.”
Wells’ identity remained suppressed for a month after the High Court decision was released so that he could consider challenging the decision with the Court of Appeal. A notice of appeal was never filed.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.