escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Noel Nelmes

Noel Keith Nelmes

Alias

.

Offences

Assault, wounding with intent to injure a Timaru woman in March 2004

Victims

Joan Hicks

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1947

Current Location

At large in Washdyke, Timaru

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to two years nine months in February 2005
Released February 2006, on home detention until June 2006
On parole until June 2007

Background
From Christchurch Press Friday February 25th 2005
A Timaru builder, jailed for his brutal attack on a defenceless woman, was forced to listen to a harrowing account of how the bashing blighted his victim's life. Noel Keith Nelmes, 57, was sentenced to two years and nine months jail for a vicious and sustained assault which left former schoolmate Joan Hicks injured from head to toe and psychologically traumatised.

Nelmes had originally claimed the attack had been done by an intruder and the injuries he sustained were in fighting him off, but in the Timaru District Court this month he admitted he was the assailant and pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to injure. Despite his guilty plea Nelmes subsequently resurrected the intruder story to the probation officer compiling the pre-sentence report for the court.

But at his sentencing in the Christchurch District Court yesterday, Nelmes had to listen to Hicks read out her victim impact report about what she had suffered at his hands. Shaking with emotion, Hicks said she had gone to his home after hearing the cancer Nelmes had been battling had returned. Hicks, also 57, suffered from the same type of cancer.

She took 10 minutes to outline her physical injuries. "This man has destroyed my faith in people." Hicks said. "After being released from hospital, I've been scared to live in my own home. I feel so unsafe in my home that I bought a cellphone to keep by my bed and I have an alarm on the doors. I'm unable to leave after dark even to call my own cat. I cry continually and feel ashamed and degraded and humiliated. I've spent two months washing myself raw in the shower."

Prosecutor Tim Gresson said Nelmes was still in denial, having resurrected the intruder claim. Given that Hicks was found dressed only in her underwear, the "only rational explanation" was that the attack was sexually motivated but not pursued to conclusion. Quentin Hix, defending, said Nelmes accepted full responsibility for the attack and was sorry. He could pay reperation of $1000. Judge Murray Abott said Hicks had visited Nelmes, an acquaintance, on March 25th last year and they had drunk together but as she got up to go home he launched a vicious attack by hitting her over the head with a spirit level.

"A sexual motive for the attack may well have been the case but whatever prompted you to behave in this appalling way to her, causing significant injuries to an alcohol affected but innocent woman who had gone to your flat for the principal purpose of checking how you were in the context of your recent diagnosis of recurrence of your cancer." he said. Abbott imposed a sentence of two years and nine months jail but declined to impose a minimum term due to Nelmes' health problems.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top