A 42-year-old man was jailed for ten years yesterday for the buggery and sexual exploitation of a boy who worked for him.

The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to the charges but denied a charge of sexual assault which was left on his file.

The court heard how the man had befriended the victim after employing him and was invited to have meals with the victim's family before luring the youngster to his own apartment.

He then interfered with the 13-year-old victim and gave him oral sex at the place of work. When the victim was 14, the defendant had anal sex with him.

Crown counsel Cindy Clarke said the authorities came involved after being alerted by a school counsellor.

In a victim impact statement read by Ms Clarke, the court heard the victim was deeply traumatised by the incidents which had affected him both mentally and physically.

He said he was entertaining both homicidal and suicidal thoughts, had spent seven days in a mental institution while away at school and had to be flown home because of the lack of support.

The victim said he had negative thoughts about adults, found it difficult to concentrate and was suffering from sleeping and eating disorders and was now getting counselling for depression and was on medication while he tried to rebuild his life.

He said in the written statement of the attacker: "Little did I know that he was formulating a plan for me. I didn't know he would betray me and take advantage of me."

Ms Clarke said the sentence should be a deterrent and should protect the community.

Assistant Justice Warner questioned why bail had been given to the perpetrator but Ms Clarke said that was not her decision. She said there was a lot of public concern about sexual offences against minors and called for a sentence of four to five years.

A character witness said she had known the defendant for ten years and that he had formed a healthy relationship with her sons and was sincere and helpful.

Mr. Warner drew attention to a Police statement which indicated the defendant had not shown remorse because he said the victim had been willing.

He said: "To my mind it's the depths of lack of remorse - he somehow indicated what he did was all right. That's not remorse.

"Is a 13-year-old really consenting?"

Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill said "This is not a paedophile", to which Mr. Warner said: "What do you call him?"

Mr Pettingill said his client had become emotionally attached to the victim and had broken off the relationship because he realised it was inappropriate before the boy had complained.

"What you are left with is two gay individuals who have an inappropriate relationship because one is younger than he should be," said Mr. Pettingill.

In a tearful address to the court the defendant apologised to the victim and his family but said although he had been in the wrong, there had been mutual feelings between the two. He said he had cared about the bullying that the victim was suffering at school as a result of his sexuality and how he had urged him to come out to his mother.

Mr. Warner said: "This was a callous and deceitful exploitation of the victim. He was a confused young man. The defendant knew the situation and still persisted."

He said the victim had been suffering long-term psychological damage and felt betrayed and let down by his boss.

Mr. Pettingill said his client had suffered a nervous breakdown and had needed treatment at St. Brendan's as a result of the case and was still getting counselling for depression. He pointed to his client's clean record, the many supporters and family members who attended the court hearing in support of the offender and said nothing would be served by jailing the offender.

He said: "There was no threat involved in this case, or violence or inappropriate force."

But Mr. Warner said: "This case is a classic case of exploitation, this individual took him on and exploited him. How can you say this individual won't do that again if he has a propensity to do that? He gave the young boy a job, befriended him, went to the mother's house and befriended the mother and under her nose has illicit sexual relationship with her son and continues."

Mr. Pettingill said the job had not been offered on that basis but Mr. Warner replied: "How would you know that?"

The defendant was sentenced to ten years on count one which included performing masturbation and oral sex on the victim between September 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000 and five years for buggery on the victim between January 1, 2001 and February 28, 2001. The sentences will run concurrently.

Editor's note: The Criminal Code prevents the media from identifying a person convicted of committing a sexual offence if it would lead to the identification of the victim. Because the victim's employment by the accused is central to this case, we cannot identify the convicted person.