Ashburton counsellor jailed for sex offending

'Time bomb' warning from judge

An Ashburton counsellor’s sex offending could have left his victim as “a time bomb”, Christchurch District Court Judge Raoul Neave warned at his sentencing today.

He jailed Eduard Machiel de Jonge, 57, for two years nine months on two charges of indecent assault and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection with a boy under 16.

De Jonge went to jail still claiming his innocence, after the guilty verdicts at a trial in Timaru. He had been remanded for custody for sentence in Christchurch.

Judge Neave said the offending took place over about six months at the end of years of counselling or mentoring the boy from the age of eight.

Since the offending, the boy’s anxiety and depression had increased.

“One can only hope that he will receive well targeted assistance to see that this does not devastate his life,” said the judge. “Offending of this kind can be a time bomb as far as the victim is concerned. We may not find out the full extent of the explosion until many years down the track.”

Defence counsel Bridget Ayrey said it was de Jonge’s first involvement with the police. He had written a letter to the judge asking for some compassion to be extended to his family at such a difficult time.

She said de Jonge and his wife had been married for 29 years and the remand in custody since the trial was the first time they had spent any length of time apart.

His wife had suggested that de Jonge had to some extent opened himself up to this situation by being too willing to become involved with other people’s problems.

The boy was aged 14 at the time of the offending, which involved touching and oral sex. It came to light when the boy’s mother read text messages on his cellphone.

Judge Neave said there was clear evidence in the messages that de Jonge was doing his best to engineer occasions on which the offending could recur. The text messages were inexplicable in anything other than a sexual context.

“I have to say I am in entire agreement with the verdict that the jury reached,” he said.

He also described de Jonge as a contributor to the community who had done “sterling work”. “There are many people who have every reason to be grateful to you.”

He reduced his sentence because of the extra difficulties it would pose for de Jonge.

He did not add to the sentence because of the lack of any admission of guilt or expressions of remorse from de Jonge in his pre-sentence interview.

“I don’t think you can be criticised for failing to be a hyprocrite,” said Judge Neave. “You have said you are not guilty and you have maintained that to the pre-sentence report writer.”