Bevins v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 1754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-454-000012

[2019] NZHC 1754

BETWEEN
CONNOR BEVINS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 24 July 2019

Appearances:

W E Kronast for Appellant

J J Harvey and E R Pairman for Respondent

Judgment:

24 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] On 17 April 2019 Mr Bevins was sentenced before Judge Large in the District Court at Palmerston North to two years seven months’ imprisonment for five charges of causing harm by posting digital communications and one charge of attempting to cause harm by posting a digital communication.1

[2] Mr Bevins appeals his sentence on the grounds the sentence was manifestly excessive as the reductions for youth and personal circumstances were inadequate and the Judge erred in imposing two of the s 22 charges cumulatively.

Factual background

[3] The charges arise from a public humiliation campaign aimed at men Mr Bevins and his associates identified as paedophiles. Mr Bevins is involved in a vigilante group

1 R v Bevins [2019] NZDC 7407; Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, s 22, maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or $50,000 fine; Crimes Act 1961, s 72.

BEVINS v R [2019] NZHC 1754 [24 July 2019]

known as “Anti-P”, who have taken it upon themselves to keep their community safe from paedophiles. Mr Bevins created fake identities on social media accounts where he would pretend to be underage. He then targeted victims he believed to be paedophiles by messaging them through internet platforms and coaxing them to meet in person. At the meet up Mr Bevins would then reveal his real identity to the unsuspecting victim and attempt to place them under citizen’s arrest. The interactions were often accompanied by a physical altercation and verbal abuse from Mr Bevins and his associates. The encounters were filmed, and Mr Bevins would later post the videos to YouTube and to a Facebook page run by Mr Bevins called “Creep Catchers”.

Offending against “A”

[4] The first victim, A, is 26 years of age and is intellectually disabled. A received a message from a dating profile purporting to be from “Lisa Anderson” asking to meet him at the Plaza Shopping Centre. The message said “Lisa” wanted to meet for sex. A went to the Plaza where he was accosted by Mr Bevins and an associate. Mr Bevins accused A of coming to meet a 15 year old for sex and filmed the interaction. Mr Bevins later posted a video of the interaction to the Creep Catchers Facebook page as well as personal information regarding the A’s family. A reported suffering from anxiety, stress and pseudo-seizures as a result of the posting of the video and considered committing suicide.

Offending against “B”

[5] The second victim, B, received a message from another user on the social dating app, Grindr. The user purported to be a 20 year old male, “James”. In the course of the communication that followed, “James” informed B…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bevins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bevins v The Queen [2019] NZHC 1754
Case: [2019] NZHC 1754
Decision Date: 24 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Connor Bevins appealed his sentence for posting digital communications with the intention of causing harm, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the Judge erred in imposing two of the charges cumulatively. The High Court found that while the offending was serious, the starting point for sentencing was too high and substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with leave to apply for home detention. The offending arose from a public humiliation campaign against men identified as paedophiles. Bevins created fake social media profiles and targeted victims by messaging them and coaxing them to meet in person. At the meetup, Bevins would reveal his real identity and attempt to place the victims under citizen’s arrest. The encounters were filmed, and Bevins would post the videos to YouTube and a Facebook page run by Bevins called “Creep Catchers”. The offending was considered to be at the upper end of the scale due to the nature of the circulation and the foreseeable harm of the videos. However, the starting point of four years’ imprisonment was considered too high, and a starting point of three years was more appropriate. The Court also considered that a three month discount for youth and mental health issues was appropriate, and a 20 per cent discount for guilty plea resulted in an end sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Home detention was considered to be a finely balanced option, and leave to apply for home detention was granted.

Orders