When police were alerted, the father – who was in his 70s – told officers he wasn’t doing anything wrong.
The woman’s name suppression was heard in court today.
Crown solicitor Lexie Glaser today opposed the woman’s permanent name suppression bid, arguing that because her stepfather might be wrongly identified as the co-accused, it didn’t reach the high threshold of extreme hardship.
Judge Clark wasn’t so convinced, and said media printing stories online and social media pages meant the information “had a long lifespan”.
“This type offending … is fascinating to the public because, for some reason, this type of offending attracts attention.
“In my view, there’s a real possibility that [stepfather] will be wrongly … considered the culprit.”
‘She has a complex background’
The woman had only recently met her father before offending, and soon after moved in with him.
The pair shared a bed, and the affair began.
Other house occupants regularly heard the pair having sex, and openly talking about having sex together.
On at least one occasion, an occupant walked in on the pair having sex.
When questioned, the father denied any wrongdoing, while the daughter declined to make a statement to police.
The father has also been charged and is in custody awaiting the completion of mental health reports.
At sentencing, Judge Clark explained the woman had a “complex” background.
Reports also showed she had post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder [FASD], and a “mild or moderate intellectual disability”.
‘This type of offending attracts attention’
In assessing the application, Judge Clark said it was clear the woman “has a number of different issues and that is important from my perspective because it means that although she is an adult, her level of functioning is not age appropriate”.
“It is below that.”
While the judge accepted the woman’s behaviour was “utterly unacceptable”, she deemed her “highly vulnerable”.
That placed higher culpability on her father, “who is a man of more mature years”.
In pursuing her bid, the woman’s counsel Glenn Dixon said if her name was printed the public would wrongly identify her stepfather as her co-offender given they share the same last name.
He said news stories were no longer printed in the paper and fish and chip wrapper the next day.
The woman’s name would remain ”on the internet forever”.
“It would make future employment almost impossible.”
He said people would automatically assume her stepfather was the perpetrator.
Judge Clark said she heard his argument “loud and clear”.
Glaser accepted there would be an element of suspicion cast on her stepfather. However, the issue for the Crown was absence of evidence to prove their argument.
“I think that’s just common sense,” the judge replied.
“I’m just trying to be real here.
“Should he just have to put up with it?
“The reality is that people will think it’s him,” she said.
Glaser said that was accepted but there was no evidence that members of the public would approach him, and those close to him already knew the truth.
“If you’re thought of as the culprit when you are utterly innocent, when people have an undue level of fascination because of the nature of the offending, isn’t that enough?” the judge asked her.
Glaser said case law had shown that undue hardship had to result, something beyond “mere suffering”.
Judge Clark said she appreciated undue hardship did require something more than the hardship that would occur through publication.
“I accept that publication in present times doesn’t just mean publication in a disposable newspaper which will then disappear into the fire in the coming months.
“Publication clearly in current times means inclusion on social media, via digital news outlets and that is information which will have a long lifespan.”
Here, there was a real possibility that an innocent member of the family could be considered “the culprit of the incest offending”.
“It would be utterly unfair, not just now, but in the future for [stepdad] to have a cloud hanging over him when he has done nothing wrong … it is proper to allow for the defendant’s name to be permanently suppressed.”
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 11 years and has been a journalist for 22.