Crown prosecutor Courtney Martyn told the court that aside from sexual offending by family members against other family members, it was difficult to imagine a “more serious breach of trust”.
Vidhanage’s lawyer, Thomas Harré, acknowledged there had been “real harm” caused by his client’s offending. That harm had also extended to his family, Harré said.
He said that once Vidhanage served his time behind bars he would be deported to Sri Lanka, leaving his in-laws “without any realistic prospect of seeing him” while also putting his wife in a “rather difficult situation”.
Judge Farish said that Vidhanage had also subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of intimidation which related to him “accosting or approaching” an 11-year-old girl after she had left school.
“You stopped your car, you asked her whether she wanted a cigarette, she declined. You then asked her whether she wanted a ride in your car she declined, and then you forcefully directed her to get in the car.
“At that point, she ran away very wisely and waited until you had left. And then as she was returning home she saw your vehicle, very courageously and bravely took down the number plate, went straight home and told her mother and you were subsequently apprehended.”
Judge Farish said Vidhanage would be deported after serving one-third of his sentence.
She said Vidhanage continued to deny the offending, therefore she could not give him any credit for remorse.
Judge Farish said there were several aggravating features of Vidhanage’s offending, including the victims’ vulnerability.
“They were vulnerable, not only because of the position they were in, in the early hours of the morning in a facility where they should have felt entitled to be safe, but they had both physical and mental vulnerabilities. They were incredibly fragile.”
There was also a significant breach of trust.
“You’re there to provide care because they can no longer do that for themselves, and you abuse that trust, and that has caused huge issues in relation to that feeling of trust that families have when they place their elderly loved ones into care.”
She jailed Vidhanage for 10 years and six months.
Care facility’s battle for suppression
A hearing was held in the Christchurch District Court regarding suppression last month, with the care facility where Vidhanage worked at requesting permanent name suppression.
RNZ has obtained submissions filed by the facility in support of suppression.
The facility’s lawyer submitted it would suffer “undue hardship” if its details were published.
The lawyer said there would be a “real risk of unfair reputational damage” to the company, staff and residents which could cause reputational and financial damage as well as be “unfairly detrimental” to its staff and future staff.
The lawyer also submitted it may “gravely impact and unduly concern the wellbeing of its residents” and their families and lead to “associated and unnecessary stigma” to all of the referenced groups of people.
The manager recalled in an affidavit the “absolute horror” she felt when she first heard the allegations against Vidhanage.
The manager said the offending had a “significant impact” on them and the facility’s community.
“Residents should feel safe, cared for and loved in their home.
“This has shaken myself and staff to our core, causing deep emotional distress which has exhibited physically in some of the team.”
The manager said they had previously had no reason to question Vidhanage. They said the “robust employment vetting process” did not raise any concerns regarding his suitability for the role.
The facility had recently implemented a campaign aimed at “further encouraging an environment where staff feel able to raise concerns”.
Media exposure would also impact staff, the manager said.
“For many it would be something unfathomable and would cause them considerable anxiety and distress.
“My deep concern would be the flow-on effect for them, which would likely manifest in many different ways. If this further pain can be avoided, I believe that would enable us to move forward and it would be the best possible outcome for us all.”
Judge Katie Elkin said she was satisfied that publication of the facility’s name would be likely to cause undue hardship.
“I make that finding on the basis of the evidence that I have been given about the vulnerability of many of those residents in particular. I’m concerned mostly about hardship to them and to other staff, rather than any commercial interest of the [facility].”
Judge Elkin said there was no suggestion of “ongoing for systemic issues” or of any failings by the facility.
“In my view, it will not really assist in any way in relation to the care of these residents for them to know where this occurred and, in my view, naming of the [care facility] would risk unnecessarily and unjustifiably compromising the trust and care relationship between the carers and vulnerable residents.”
Judge Elkin granted permanent name suppression for the facility.
In a statement to RNZ, Detective Tone Kopelani said his thoughts were with the victims and their families.
“This sort of offending is very distressing for all those concerned, so it is pleasing to have someone held to account in the courts.
“The case involved vulnerable victims, and it was important to ensure they were properly supported, and their families were involved.”
He said police thanked the care facility for their assistance in terms of communicating with residents’ family members as part of police inquiries.
“To date, we do not believe there are any more victims from the facility, however we would ask anyone who does have concerns about potential criminal behaviour in respect of this matter to come forward to police.”