Craig Crofts

April 16th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

An Invercargill man convicted of raping a woman in 2004 is angry she was upset by his appearance outside her house on Sunday and says what happened is in the past and she needs to get over what happened.

moved next door to the woman in 2011, which outraged the community and spurred the justice minister to propose an amendment to the Harassment Act.

Crofts had moved from that address but on Sunday was seen outside the woman’s house by her partner, who said Crofts was at the end of the driveway. …

Yesterday, Crofts said he lived four blocks from the woman and had every right to walk down the street.

He had been returning from his father’s house and, though it was not his usual route, he had done nothing wrong.

There was “no particular reason” he had chosen to walk down that street, he said. As he was walking past the woman’s house, her neighbour had called out to him. He had said hello to the neighbour, but he did not stop at the end of her driveway, he said.

“It’s been eight years – it’s in the past. It’s a public area and it’s my right to walk down the street. I don’t want anything to do with her. I got over it; she needs to get over it, too.”

What a nasty piece of work. There is no way he just happened to walk home that way, and stop. He is harrassing her, after raping her.

Crofts has at least 77 convictions and has been sent to prison on 13 or more occasions. Sadly he only got four years for the 2004 . Since then he has been back inside at least twice – relating to breaches of harassment orders and stealing women’s underwear.

Last year, Justice Minister Judith Collins proposed a new protection order under the Harassment Act following The Southland Times’ story about Crofts moving next door to the woman he raped.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Ms Collins said the proposed order was a priority for the minister and would probably be introduced to the House in late May.

The order would allow victims of a serious violent or sexual offence to apply to the court for protection. The advantage would be the new order relies on an application by the victim, and could include special conditions designed to address the particular circumstances of the case.

Breaching the order could be punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5000.

For two breaches in three years, the maximum penalty would be increased to two years’ imprisonment for a third contravention.

Sounds very much needed for cases like this.

Tags: ,

21 Responses to “Craig Crofts”

  1. Elaycee (4,287 comments) says:

    Crofts has at least 77 convictions and has been sent to prison on 13 or more occasions. Sadly he only got four years for the 2004 rape. Since then he has been back inside at least twice – relating to breaches of harassment orders and stealing women’s underwear.

    77 convictions? 13 times in the clink? What filth.

    Whilst the panty waists will bleat about ‘prisoner rights’ (oxymoron), this reality is that this piece of human flotsam should never have been released. Ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Psycho Milt (2,250 comments) says:

    I got over it; she needs to get over it, too.

    1. Obviously he didn’t get over it, because eight years later he’s still taking advantages to get a thrill out of the misery he caused her.

    2. Got over what, exactly? A well-deserved and overly-light prison sentence for a violent crime? If it was that easy to get over, he must have needed longer inside.

    3. Statements like this tempt a person to the uncharitable wish that something might happen to Mr Crofts that would give him first-hand experience of what he’s expecting his victim to “get over.”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (2,984 comments) says:

    Mr Crofts has, it appears, served the punishment ordered by the law.

    Mr Crofts walked down a public street, not even stopping at the end of the driveway in question.

    I tend to agree with the assessment of Mr Crofts by those above but do question whether this story is not yet another pathetic slime beat-up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chris2 (754 comments) says:

    He is clearly a sexual deviant. This from The Southland Times of 10 December 2011 ….

    Craig James Crofts is in jail today after he was caught trying to steal women’s knickers from the Farmers department store in Invercargill.

    Crofts, 48, was remanded in custody to January 17 for sentence after he admitted stealing six pairs of women’s underwear on November 31. The court was told he placed the underwear in his backpack and was stopped in the car park by security guards who had witnessed the theft.

    His explanation was he had taken them to give to his partner as a Christmas present, the court was told. He is being held in custody after the court was advised his living address was “not suitable”.

    All other information was suppressed by Judge Gary MacAskill.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    Cases like this make my blood boil…if “three strikes” had been in place when this lady was raped, he would still be inside – assuming of course that at least two of those 77 previous convictions were for “strike” offences. Or perhap he would have been inside doing 20 for an earlier offence, and she wouldn’t have been raped in the first place.

    One thing only is comforting – guys like this now won’t get the chance to rack up 77 convictions for serious violence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,422 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be a shame if one of his rightful “random” walks lead him to cross paths with a large, angry uncontrolled dog that ripped his dick off. Or even just one of his legs.

    He’s a tough guy, he’d soon “get over it”…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Northland Wahine (647 comments) says:

    I’d suggest he have an unwelcomed instrument shoved up his orifice and see how long it takes him to get “over it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,662 comments) says:

    Those of you who have given DG a thumbs down have you a logical reason for opposing the 3 strikes legislation or is the thumbs down just personal.

    The may be some anomalies in the legislation but he is quite right – if it had been in place we would not have this problem now.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    Chuck: amusing isn’t it? Anonymous “little men” – to quote a thug who comments on here – gleefully clicking the “thumbs down” button from the safety of their anonymous keyboard…I like to think it is just annoyance on their part that the legislation is working exactly as we knew it would, and catching only the really nasty bastards (15 second strikers now) who need to be locked up…Here’s a prediction: when the first third striker gets locked up – and that may well be sometime this year – the media coverage of it will be very muted, because he will be a thoroughly nasty bastard no sensible person would want walking around. And it sticks in the media’s collective craw that the legislation is working just as intended, and just as we said it would….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. edhunter (491 comments) says:

    The guy is 48 has 77 convictions & has been sent to prison at least 13 times?
    Even without 3 strikes & jurys not knowing about previous offending surely the judges do, why are they continously giving this guy what would appear to be weak pissant sentences no where near the maximum available?
    He is obviously not rehabilable surely it’s the judiciary’s responibility to keep this scum of the street as long as legally possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Craig needs to go to the HRC. Surely they’ll be able to get him some money from the victim who obviously prejudiced and offensive towards him.

    But seriously, judges need to actually stop letting these criminals out to continue to harm the rest of us. I’ve always been unsure why brutal rape doesn’t get a decent sentence length (like 25 years actually in prison). I know it’s the politicians who ultimately responsible, but the judges don’t seem to have any problem with our short sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    edhunter: the last para of your post explains exactly why we needed to pass the three strikes law. “Someone” keeps letting this guy and men like him back on the street, and it’s not the politicians. To put it more bluntly (I’m feeling full of vigour today) if the judicial arm of our government doesn’t listen, then the politicians – who represent all of us – have to make them listen, by way of mandatory sentencing.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,662 comments) says:

    have to make them listen, by way of mandatory sentencing.

    I do not think I agree depending of course on what you mean. If you mean car theft first time 1 year, second time 2 years that would not be fair or practical.

    There needs to be major changes to the justice system like they are apparently looking at now. Firstly, there needs to be an improvement in the training of lawyers and of course by necessity law professors. Secondly, there has to be a better selection of judges, they should have a degree of common sense as well as at least a law degree. Thirdly, will judges must be allowed discretion. However, they must be obliged to exercise that discretion wisely and if they don’t then they must be held accountable.

    The present system of a Judicial Conduct Commissioner is just window dressing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    Ah, Chuck…if you are in favour of three strikes then you are in favour of a degree of mandatory sentencing. That is what the third strike sentence IS, a mandatory maximum penalty “unless it would be manifestly unjust”, which is a very high threshold to get past – as some villains will soon find.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,662 comments) says:

    David, I cannot argue with that. I supported the three strikes legislation and still do because changes like I suggested would be better but realistically are not likely to happen anytime soon. The totally inadequate sentences for extremely violent crimes needed to be addressed and while the three strikes legislation was not a magic bullet it was the quickest and best way to address this problem.

    I would have to know what you mean by mandatory sentencing for all crimes to know whether I supported it but suspect I wouldn’t.

    I think first changing sentencing guidelines should be looked at. The idea that a guilty plea should automatically mean a reduction is ridiculous. If a scumbag is caught red handed and there is no credible defence there should be no reduction. That is just one example.

    I see the low life that murdered the 15 year old boy and cut up the body has been found guilty of murder and not manslaughter. If the jury had got it wrong and just found him guilty of manslaughter I presume the judge would had to have given him a discount as he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    Re DG @ 12:26, it’s a shame that the likes/dislikes don’t have the contributor’s name available like on posts in Facebook. I find that I tend to put more weight on some bloggers opinions than on others.

    Just as I express my opinion at times, I often give a post an up or a down as an indication about how I feel about the post yet don’t have anything germane to add to the discussion ( and OK, I admit when Penny Not So posts I give her a down on principle because in my experience she has NEVER said anything that makes sense to me)

    I’d have no problem standing by any Up/Down I added.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Hodor (36 comments) says:

    I agree with Kacang, I am a frequent reader but infrequent commenter, as I often have little to add. I will often find myself nodding or shaking my head as I read, and would be happy for my name to be shown as a downer or an upper.

    Also concur with DG, pieces of shit like this guy should have been locked up forever a long time ago. Imagine how many people he wouldn’t have hurt, and how much time and money the country could have saved.

    My 2c worth…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,555) Says:
    April 16th, 2013 at 12:26 pm
    Chuck: amusing isn’t it? Anonymous “little men” – to quote a thug who comments on here – gleefully clicking the “thumbs down” button from the safety of their anonymous keyboard

    Do you really need to get approval from the thumbs to convince yourself you are right ?

    I find there is no relationship between what you post and how it is voted on. I have posted banal off hand comments that were very popular, and rather insightful posts that were totally ignored or mysteriously voted down. It is all a bit of fun really and your probably voted down based on something else you said another time on another thread. Such is the fickle nature of people.

    As for the topic of the thread. I am not a fan of mandatory sentencing. I am also not convinced that tougher sentences are effective, though I am open to the possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (6,703 comments) says:

    Another burst of reality from kea
    Kea if a longer sentence means the scum are not on the streets how can the result be no difference in their re offending?
    please explain.

    As to discount for guilty
    You need some method to save us all the court time and costs that a not guilty because its free for my defense and I might get off entails.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,309 comments) says:

    Kea: who said I cared what the “thumbs” do? I simply professed amusement; an emotion I frequently feel when observing humanity…but then again, only the lefties know they are always right…people like me are more susceptible to self doubt and prone to self examination…

    Hodor: A very good two cents’ worth too sir, if I may say so…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KPM (1 comment) says:

    Mr Crofts, you really need to go stay with your friends Melanie Watts or Elizabeth Mara in Gore , this would give you & the scum you hang around with something to play with (there kids) instead of creeping around the victims house or trying to abuse her. It is not the police you need to be afraid of. Perhaps publishing those sick letters you sent to the victim, to the public forum would convince you to change your ways as I am sure placing a target on your back is best done by yourself. Judith Collins is changing the law, this is guaranteed POWER to the victim & every other woman or victim in New Zealand that is placed in bad situations like this….to you & your mates…..your time is limited, be very afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.