‘An unbearable contradiction’: The courtroom praise that left a woman feeling like throwing up

Monday, 25 May 2026

Tabetha Elliott’s adoptive father received a discount on his jail sentence for his previous good character.

Victim advocates and Labour support National’s proposal to scrap such discounts for sex offenders.

The Criminal Bar Association is concerned it undermines the independence and expertise of the courts.

Tabetha Elliott says it was an “unbearable contradiction” sitting in court listening to references praising a man’s kindness, leadership and faith, as he was sentenced for sexually abusing her from the age of 14.

His previous “good character” saw him receive a slight reduction in his jail sentence - a discount National has vowed to scrap if reelected. Catrin Owen reports.

The first time Steven Simons touched his adopted daughter Tabetha Elliott she was 14 and sleeping on an aeroplane after her first overseas trip.

For the next five years he repeatedly sexually abused her in various ways.

The abuse was kept hidden with Simons telling Elliott multiple times: “Don’t tell your mother.”

Two decades later Elliott confided in her counsellor, her husband and then, in early 2024, the police.

“For so long I blamed myself for it … I spent years with it just in a box in my mind.”

Simons faced a judge-alone trial in 2024 and while he admitted a representative charge of sexual conduct with a dependent family member, he denied 10 other sex charges.

At trial he claimed it was his adopted daughter who had come on to him.

Judge Soana Moala rejected this evidence and found him guilty on all charges.

“From the outset, it is difficult to believe Mr Simons’ evidence that Ms Elliott was this powerful young seductress who instigated almost all of the sexual contact and that he was simply a victim of her flirting and sexual advances. This is in complete contrast with the dynamics of their relationship as parent and child and the reality of the evidence. Mr Simons was in a position of power and control over Ms Elliott for almost all of her life,” Judge Moala said in her decision.

The guilty verdicts were a relief for Elliott, who waived her right to automatic name suppression to be able to speak publicly about the abuse by her adoptive father.

She had been believed.

Ahead of his sentencing later that year, supporters of Simons provided character references, including a pastor and people Elliott had once considered friends.

“I remember sitting with the unbearable contradiction of hearing people praise his kindness, leadership and faith while knowing firsthand the harm he had caused behind closed doors,” she told Stuff.

“It felt as though the suffering of the victim was being weighed against the reputation of the offender - and somehow the reputation still counted for more than it should.”

It was an “incredibly isolating” feeling and a “real kick in the guts”, Elliott said.

“Having the pastor from the church where I grew up coming in and saying, ‘No, he's a good character.’

“They talked about how he used to run a children's ministry in the church and how amazing he was at that … I'm sitting there feeling like I'm gonna throw up,” Elliott said.

In Judge Moala’s decision, she said Simons used his “power” as a “father and protector to heap the guilt” on Elliott.

“That guilt and feeling like it was her fault is something that Mr Simons used to hide the offending.”

At Simons’ sentencing, the judge took into account some of the character references and his age to deduct time off the starting point of eight years. He ended up being sentenced to five years and two months imprisonment. (Under the Sentencing Act, letters of support can be provided to a judge ahead of a sentencing to give a fuller picture of the defendant. The judge can then take any of the references into account when imposing a sentence.)

Contact the reporter: catrin.owen@stuffdigital.co.nz

Elliott said while she understood why good character references existed, “violent sexual offending exposes a painful truth”.

“Someone who can appear generous, respected, religious, or community-minded and still commit deeply harmful acts.”

Elliott spoke of how offenders relied on positions of trust, authority and social standing.

“Victims should not have to watch the harm done to them minimised because the offender was liked by colleagues, church members or community leaders.”

Earlier this month, National announced that if reelected it planned to scrap good character discounts like Elliott’s adoptive father received.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, under National, judges would be “prohibited from treating good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing for sexual offending”.

“The result will be tougher sentences, and stopping judges from being forced to consider the public reputation of an offender when sentences for sexual offending are being handed down.”

Luxon said it was an “absolute disgrace” judges had to take into account good character references.

The announcement has found favour with political parties on both sides of the debating chamber. More on that later.

Elliott is the deputy chair of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board and her husband unsuccessfully vied for selection as a National Party candidate in Botany.

She is supportive of the proposed legislative change.

“There are so many gaps and issues in our justice system for people that have been or are in my position. I think this is a great step by the government but there is so much more that needs to be done.”

Elliott said it was her understanding National’s stance was part of a plan developed in 2018 by a joint committee.

“If it gives somebody the strength to come forward or helps that they know that because they're a church pastor or whatever they are, they're not going to get discounted for being a good person … it sort of puts a bit of belief in people too … you're not a good person if you're doing that stuff.”

What is a ‘good character’ discount?

As it stands, under the Sentencing Act, a judge must take into account a variety of factors relevant to a case, including the impact of the offending on the victim, the seriousness of the crime, the offender’s background and aggravating and mitigating factors that may increase or decrease the sentence.

One of those mitigating factors is any evidence of the offender’s good character.

What do people have to say on the proposed change?

Kathryn McPhillips the executive director of HELP (a charity that supports sexual abuse survivors) told Stuff discounts for sexual offending could be really invalidating for victims. She said she was supportive of the proposed legislative but asked: “Why not just do it now?”

“ It really just reinforces that dynamic that the victim doesn't really count, that this is all about this person who did this to them, who caused them this harm … so it’s very, very painful.”

McPhillips said sexual abuse was “never an accident”.

Something, the Government’s Chiefs Victims Advisor Ruth Money echoed.

“You don’t accidentally rape a child or sexually violate a person,” she said.

Money wrote to the Government last September encouraging character references for child sex offenders to be scrapped.

She said there was nothing “more abhorrent” for a victim to hear than “glowing references” at a sentencing about their abuser.

Money also said there was some “exclusivity” to the process with well connected offenders “calling on so-called influential people”.

This created a disparity.

Retired District Court Judge David Harvey said National’s proposal was vague and didn’t specify the range of charges it could affect.

He said he was not saying that sexual offenders didn’t deserve to be locked up if the offending was serious enough, however the proposed change lacked nuance.

“There's a whole range of behaviours that can fall within sexual offending and to generalise it in the way that they have, or at least the way that they've released the policy is misleading, and in my view, it requires a certain, level of nuance and a certain level of granularity before you can say, ‘Well, this is a good idea or this is a bad idea’.”

“It they are looking at any sort of sexual offending from a pat on the backside as you're walking down the street to full-on gang rape … it lacks nuance.”

When judges were sentencing offenders they took into account whether the person had any previous convictions and a wide range of other factors, Judge Harvey said.

“What it [the policy] does sadly is that it deprives the judge of the opportunity to impose the correct sentence for the level of offending that is before the court, but the whole policy of this government seems to be to deprive judges of that level of discretion.”

The Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand (CBANZ) is also concerned about the proposal and says it “undermines the independence and expertise of our courts”.

President Annabel Cresswell said the circumstances of every offender was different and complex.

“This is why courts, and not politicians, have the job of determining outcomes after careful consideration of all facts.”

Cresswell said it was “absolutely not the case” that those who committed sexual offending always received a discount for “good behaviour”.

“Even in the limited number of sexual violence cases where ‘good behaviour’ is referenced in a sentencing decision, it is balanced against other factors, such as the need for deterence, punishment, the views of the victim, and the chances of rehabilitation.”

Cresswell said CBANZ urged reinstatement of sex education that included consent, funding for mental health services and better resourcing for institutions that had been cut.

What do the politicians say?

“No sexual offender is a person of good character. Period,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in announcing the proposed legislation.

Stuff asked National for further details about the proposed change and why it singled out sex offenders and not other serious crimes.

Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said the party was starting with sexual offending first and other types of offending could be considered “down the line”.

“It’s sometimes the case that the so-called good character of a person can enable sexual offending.”

Goldsmith said the change would require an amendment of the Sentencing Act to remove “good character” as a mitigating factor available to reduce a sentence for sex offenders.

“This builds on our work to criminalise stalking, and giving victims the power to determine whether perpetrators receive permanent name suppression.”

Labour’s justice spokesperson Camilla Belich said she was supportive of National’s proposed change to the Sentencing Act.

“I know that this change is one that victim advocates and survivor advocates have asked for … we acknowledge that sexual abuse is a serious, terrible crime and that goes without saying that those people who are convicted of those crimes are not of good character.”

While the proposed change was valuable to victims, Belich said Labour would like to see fewer victims and the Government supporting organisations that focussed on sexual violence prevention.

Green Party Co-Leader Marama Davidson had similar comments to make and also acknowledged the long work of sexual violence survivors.

She said it was reasonable, but the party was unable to support the change without seeing “actual detail”.

“What we need to point out is the hypocrisy of this Government. Luxon's Government keeps reaching for headlines with one hand, to make it appear like they care, while with the other hand they have ruthlessly cut funding to sexual violence frontline services, including funding that had already been allocated under my time as Minister for Violence Prevention,” Davidson said.

“Survivors deserve a system that puts them first, instead of a Government trying to save a buck on the backs of sexual violence victims. They must fund the services that actually keep people safe.'

A spokesperson for ACT said victims “rightly expect justice” and character references had played a part in judges handing down sentences that “fall short of these expectations”.

NZ First and Te Pāti Māori did not respond to requests for comment about their position.

Where to get help

• Rape Crisis 0800 88 33 00, click link for local helplines.

• Victim Support 0800 842 846.

• Safetalk text 4334, phone 0800 044 334 webchat safetotalk.nz or email support@safetotalk.nz.

• The Harbour Online support and information for people affected by sexual abuse.

• Women’s Refuge 0800 733 843

• Male Survivors Aotearoa Helplines across NZ, click to find out more (males only).

• If you or someone else is in immediate danger, call 111.

• If you or someone you know is in a dangerous situation, click the Shielded icon at the bottom of this website to contact Women's Refuge in a safe and anonymous way without it being traced in your browser history. If you're in our app, visit the mobile website here to access Shielded.