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

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Leslie Way

Leslie Alfred Way

Alias

Les Way

Offences

Inducing a girl under 12 to do an indecent act, also sexual violation (x2) and indecent assault of a 13 year girl in Richmond in July 2002

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1955

Current Location

unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to just 4 years with parole eligibility after 16 months in June 2007
Released October 2009?

Background
From the Nelson Mail 8th May 2007
A Nelson man who took pornographic photographs of two young girls has been convicted of four sexual offending charges. Leslie Alfred Way, 52, a labourer, had previously denied the charges and was to stand trial. However, today in Nelson District Court he admitted inducing a girl under 12 to do an indecent act, two charges of sexual violating a 13-year-old girl and one representative charge of indecent assault. He was convicted and remanded in custody until June 29 for sentencing. Judge Tony Zohrab warned Way the only possible sentence was a significant period of imprisonment. Crown prosecutor Craig Stevenson told the court Way knew the younger girl's family and met the second girl there. In 2002 at his flat he allowed both girls to watch pornography on his computer.

In July 2002 he took the girls to a motel and gave them cigarettes and alcohol, before filming them naked on a bed. That night he sexually violated the younger girl. The next day he sexually violated the second girl in an isolated spot in the Maitai Valley near Nelson, telling her she would enjoy it. On another occasion the defendant took both girls to a male associate's address in Richmond, where they were given alcohol and cigarettes. The older girl was instructed to undress and posed naked in sexual positions while both men took photographs of her. She was given $80 cash after getting dressed. The younger girl was photographed naked in August at Way's flat as he told her how to pose for him. Mr Stevenson said Way told her she could be famous one day and gave her some cash. The defendant and his male associate later viewed the images together and downloaded them on to a computer. At a later date the images of the younger girl were copied on to compact disks.

In August the defendant sexually violated the older girl, who had just turned 13. He continued indecently assaulting her on other occasions. Mr Stevenson said Way never threatened her but often told her it was a secret and that there would be trouble if she told anyone. Nelson and Marlborough police began an unrelated inquiry under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 in February 2005 and seized computers and compact disks from Way's address and from a Blenheim address now occupied by his associate. Among hundreds of images of child pornography, the majority of which had been downloaded from the internet, 10 images of the younger girl were found and three of the older girl. Mr Stevenson said both girls were very upset the photographs had been distributed on the internet. The younger girl's family was angry at Way's abuse of their trust and the older girl said the sexual abuse had caused a huge amount of stress in her life.

---

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