Bright v The King - [2024] NZHC 3131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000094

[2024] NZHC 3131

BETWEEN
AIDAN PEARSE BRIGHT

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 17 October 2024

Appearances:

M R Ridgley for Appellant

B M Bosomworth for Respondent

Judgment:

25 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 25 October 2024 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date……………………………..

BRIGHT v R [2024] NZHC 3131 [25 October 2024]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal against sentence.

[2] In the District Court, the appellant pleaded guilty to 23 charges under the Films, Videos and Public Classification Act 1993. All of the charges related to possession of objectionable publications, including rape of children and a tutorial webpage describing how to kidnap and rape children. The maximum penalty for each of the 23 charges is one of 10 years’ imprisonment. The appellant has no previous convictions.

[3] The District Court Judge adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment (60 months).1 His Honour then allowed a 50 per cent reduction in the sentence for mitigating factors including youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation. The end sentence was two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

[4] On appeal, the appellant contends that the end sentence was manifestly excessive and that a notional end point of a short term of imprisonment ought to have been reached and commuted to home detention.

[5]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Factual background

[6]All of the charges involve possession of objectionable publications:

(a)Charge 1 – saving a tutorial webpage describing how to kidnap and rape children. Described as the file reference name “Rape Tutorial – The Uncensored Hidden Web”;

(b)Charge 2 – photograph of a naked female child bound with duct tape. A naked male standing over her holding the duct tape with his penis visible;

(c)Charge 3 – screenshots from a video with a female child performing oral sex on an adult male. File reference “Linda deepthroat 2007”;

1 R v Bright [2024] NZDC 23860.

(d)Charge 4 – screenshots from a video of an adult male sexually violating a female child by rape;

(e)Charge 5 – video of an adult male sexually violating a female child by rape;

(f)Charge 6 – video of an adult male sexually violating a female child by the introduction of his penis into her anus;

(g)Charge 7 – photograph of an adult male sexually violating a female child by rape;

(h)Charge 8 – photograph of a female child performing oral sex on an adult male;

(i)Charge 9 – video of a dog licking the vagina of a female child;

(j)Charge 10 – video of an adult male sexually violating a female child by rape;

(k)Charge 11 – photograph of a female child performing oral sex on an adult male;

(l)Charge 12 – photograph of a female child performing oral sex on an adult male;

(m)Charge 13 – photograph of an adult male sexually violating a female child…

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 Bright v The King

Details

AGLC: Bright v The King [2024] NZHC 3131
Case: [2024] NZHC 3131
Decision Date: 25 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal against sentence by Aidan Pearse Bright, who had pleaded guilty to 23 charges under the Films, Videos, and Public Classification Act 1993. The charges related to the possession of objectionable publications, including material depicting the rape of children and a tutorial webpage describing how to kidnap and rape children. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The appellant, who had no previous convictions, argued that the District Court’s sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and should have been commuted to home detention.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The appellant contended that the discount for rehabilitation was insufficient, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offences and the appellant's commendable rehabilitative efforts.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge was correct in allowing discounts for youth and guilty pleas. However, the court concluded that the discount for rehabilitation was insufficient. The appellant had taken commendable steps towards rehabilitation, including seeking professional assistance, completing counselling, and engaging in tertiary education and full-time employment. The court found that an additional seven per cent discount for rehabilitation was warranted, reducing the sentence to two years and two months’ imprisonment. Despite this reduction, the threshold for home detention was not reached, and the sentence remained within the range that could be justified by the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment was substituted with a sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment.

Orders