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

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases John Gainsford

John Francis Gainsford

Alias

.

Offences

Rape (x3) and indecency (x23) involving girls under twelve in Timaru in the 1970s

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none

Age

Born 1937

Current Location

At large

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to ten years in December 2006
Paroled February 2010

Background
NZ Herald story here and here with the sentencing detailed here
His release is detailed here

From the Timaru Herald 28th October 2006
Seven days of trial and 10 hours of deliberation by the jury and John Francis Gainsford was found guilty on all but one of the sexual abuse charges he was facing. The former Salvation Army officer was late last night found guilty on 22 sexual abuse charges involving children at the Bramwell Booth Children's Home in the 1970s. In the High Court at Timaru the jury found Gainsford, 69, guilty on three counts of rape and 19 of indecencies. He was found not guilty on one indecency charge. Gainsford stood impassively in the dock as the verdicts were read. Justice Fogarty remanded Gainsford in custody until December 11 for sentencing. He then thanked the jury for what had been an onerous trial and discharged them from jury service for three years.

Gainsford had pleaded guilty to three charges of indecent assault on girls under 12 and a charge of inducing a girl under 12 to perform an indecent act, at the start of the high court trial a fortnight ago. Completing his summing up yesterday, counsel for Gainsford Paul Dacre suggested to put a child's hand over his penis in such a public place as on a bus full of children, defied logic, referring to one complainant who had alleged just that. As to the alleged assault on the male complainant, Mr Dacre told the jury the evidence was quite outrageous - whether or not it was true. He described it as a brutal assault. It was the most sustained of the assaults described by the complainants. It would have had to have occurred on a Saturday morning and in a public area of the home, meaning the complaint could not be credible. "It could not have happened without people hearing. It was monstrous activity which simply can not have been correct.

He told the jury Mrs Gainsford's evidence was one of the most important witnesses, noting it had not been questioned. "What was said in her presence 30 years ago was correct then, and correct now. It was the truth of what was going on in the home. Her statement to the court told of a meeting with a senior Salvation Army officer, of Gainsford being asked if there had been any penetration, and his response had been "definitely not". In his summing up Justice Fogarty had warned the jury that just because Gainsford had pleaded guilty to four charges they could not assume he was guilty of them all. While there was no suggestion the complainants had concocted a story to make false allegations, they had been very young girls and had talked about what was going on. Justice Fogarty advised the jury to watch for "borrowed recollections", asking whether the complainants could have got their memories from "girl talk" involving those who Gainsford had admitted indecencies with.

---

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