Alan James Rubick
Wanganui Chronicle story 1st August 2014
Convicted sex offender Alan Rubick was highly manipulative and skilled at identifying young vulnerable boys, the High Court at Wanganui has been told. Rubick was today sentenced to preventative detention with a minimum non-parole period of eight years on 10 charges of indecent assault against young boys aged seven to 14, and two years imprisonment on 20 charges of possessing objectionable material. Rubick's offending occurred in two periods between 1995 and 2001, and 2012 and 2013. The terms are to be served concurrently. Crown prosecutor Harry Mallalieu told the court the offending was highly manipulative and targeted vulnerable boys. "He twisted their view of life and encouraged them to believe what was happening to them occurring was innocent and acceptable," Mr Mallalieu said.
He said Rubick exposed the young boys to pornography, and engaged in masturbation and oral sex. Police found 12,157 objectionable images in Rubick's possession of varying degrees of seriousness. Victim impact statements read to the court spoke of the disgust and hate for Rubick and the ongoing affect his offending had. Defence lawyer Stephen Ross said Rubick was aware of the long-term harm suffered by victims. "He is instructed me to apologise but he accepts that apology is unlikely to be accepted and nor should it be." In sentencing Justice Ron Young acknowledged Rubick's guilty plea but said he showed little remorse. He said Rubick's offending rate seemed to have increased over the years and considered him highly likely to reoffend. Justice Young said Rubick was skilled in identifying vulnerable boys. "There are eight boys' lives who you have seriously compromised."
Details of earlier offending in 2004 are described as follows, from here (PDF)
Rubick CA35 / 047 July 2004 was an appeal against one conviction for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. There were five grounds of appeal, including an allegation of trial counsel incompetence. However, the Court was satisfied that there was no factual basis for these allegations.
The case therefore turned on the Judge’s direction, in summing up, in relation to evidence that the appellant had sent the complainant pornographic emails. The defence claimed that the complainant downloaded the images on the appellant’s computer, that the complainant requested the appellant to send them to him, that the appellant sent them unwillingly and then requested that the complainant erase them. The Judge, in commenting on the evidence, wrongly said that there had been no cross-examination of the complainant on whether he had been told to delete the emails. The jury may have concluded that the appellant’s story was a recent fabrication, and that may have affected their assessment of Mr Rubick’s credibility. The Judge also failed to balance a statement that the complainant had not opened the email with the defence position that he had downloaded the pictures earlier. There was a further comment suggesting that the appellant’s activities with the complainant were “secretive”, and also some material putting a pejorative cast on the defence, which enhanced concerns about the verdict
While none of these matters was central to the conviction, the case turned primarily on credibility and the Judge’s comments could have influenced the jury’s views. It followed that the conviction was quashed and a retial ordered.
Date of Birth
Sentenced to preventive detention with a 8 year minimum non-parole period in August 2014
Additional Photos & Files
Associated Media Links Alan James Rubick Sentencing Notes
OFFENCES / CONVICTIONS
|Event Date||Event||Court Location||Offence Type||Offence Date||Committed While||Sentence Imposed|