A deaf South African man who was given a second chance to stay in New Zealand after kidnapping a six-year-old girl went on to indecently assault a second victim.
Immigration to New Zealand. Photo: RNZ
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal had suspended Tim Horne's deportation for five years after he was convicted of abducting the girl, who was playing outside her house with friends, and taking her to a reserve.
But it said it could not give him a "third chance" after he tried to kiss a sleeping girl, the daughter of a woman he was helping to move house.
The tribunal heard Horne came to New Zealand with his adoptive parents and two siblings as a 12-year-old after spending two years in Britain.
His natural father died in the Bali bombings in 2002.
His first indecent assault was on New Year's Day in 2014 after he had smoked cannabis.
Following a three-year jail term, the tribunal suspended Horne's deportation, saying his offending was 'home grown' because of when he arrived here. It was concerned about his disability and splitting up his family.
The second conviction for indecent assault prompted a second deportation appeal. On both occasions, his parents told the police about his offending.
They told the tribunal their son had not been able to communicate with anyone in prison except for one guard who had learned some sign language.
His profound deafness would make adapting to a country he left as a 10-year-old boy hard, and the dangers he would face were life-threatening as he would be oblivious to problems such as racial tensions, crime and drugs.
His father would accompany him for those reasons but that would separate him from his wife of more than 25 years and his other two children. He had suffered a heart attack and undergone a triple bypass operation and was concerned for his own health.
The tribunal agreed the 25-year-old's deafness made him more dependent on his family and exposed him to added vulnerability but said the integrity of the justice and immigration system outweighed his humanitarian circumstances.
"Given the nature of the offending and the breach of the conditions of suspension, the facts do not warrant what the applicant correctly termed 'a third chance'," it said.