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

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Kevin Phair

Kevin Neil Phair

Alias

"Werewolf"

Offences

Numerous sex offences and violence on young boys up to October 1999

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1956

Current Location

Under "extended supervision"

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to 10 years 6 months in September 2000
Released under a 10 year supervision order January 2010

Background
From NZ Herald story 13th September 2000
A man calling himself "Werewolf" has been jailed for ten and-a-half years for sexually abusing two young boys. Kevin Neil Phair, aged 44, of Glen Eden, earlier pleaded guilty to four charges of sexual violation, two of attempted sexual violation, two of indecent assault and one of inducing an indecent act. Most of the offences, involving two cousins who were aged nine to 11, were representative. Phair met the father of one of the boys through CB radio. His "handle" or call sign was "Werewolf." After yesterday's sentencing in the High Court at Auckland, the mother of one of the boys said: "It was strange."The kids said he looked a bit like a werewolf - quite a scary-looking person."

On one occasion when one of the boys protested at the indecencies, Phair punched him in the head, causing him to lose consciousness briefly. When the boy came to, he found Phair trying to sodomise him. In handing down a 10 1/2-year term, Justice Judith Potter said that Phair was prepared to use violence to get his way with his victims.Prosecutor Mike Heron sought preventive detention or a lengthy period of imprisonment for Phair, who has previous convictions for offending against boys. But Phair's lawyer, Steve Cullen, said that while the offending was "odious and appalling," Phair had not quite made the grade for an indefinite sentence of preventive detention.

Justice Potter noted Phair's lack of remorse, his state of denial and lack of motivation to improve.The offending occurred shortly after Phair was released from prison. The judge said the offending was serious, repetitive and extremely offensive against two young boys who would carry the scars possibly for the rest of their lives. However, Phair's offending had not reached the point where the court must impose preventive detention.

Under s.107 a Parole Board may grant an order by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections that an inmate not be released before the applicable release date if it is satisfied that the inmate, if released before the applicable release date, would be likely to commit a specified offence between the date of release and the applicable release date (which is 3 months before the Sentence End Date). A departmental psychologist viewed in its report of 08.02.07 that Kevin Neil Phair's risk of reoffending is at "significantly higher risk or violent and / or sexual offending than is considered to exist in the average case." Because of Kevin Neil Phair's lack of treatment, lack of insight and his previous convictions for sexual offending against boys and that he offended after being paroled into the community. Kevin Neil Phair is assessed by the psychologists to remain at high risk of serious sexual reoffending.

---

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