Charteris v The Queen

Case [2021] NZHC 1171


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-000144

[2021] NZHC 1171

BETWEEN

DAVID JOHN CHARTERIS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 28 October 2020

Appearances:

J D Lucas and J M Campbell for the Appellant K A White for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 May 2021


JUDGMENT OF NATION J


Introduction

[1]                 The appellant (Mr Charteris) faced 12 separate charges alleging various sexual offences against a young boy who was aged between 11 and 14 at the time.1 After a judge-alone trial before Judge Neave in the District Court, Mr Charteris was acquitted on four of the charges but was found guilty on the remaining eight.2 He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.3 He appeals against those convictions and the sentence.

[2]                 Four of the charges on which Mr Charteris was convicted involved sexual offending at Mr Charteris’ home. One charge, laid on a representative basis, was of sexual violation of James by the insertion of Mr Charteris’ penis into James’ mouth (I refer to this as oral sex). There was a charge laid on a representative basis of sexual


1      To protect the privacy of the victim, I will refer to him by the fictitious name of James.

2      R v Charteris [2019] NZDC 4916.

3      R v Charteris [2019] NZDC 17880.

CHARTERIS v R [2021] NZHC 1171 [25 May 2021]

violation by Mr Charteris inserting his penis into James’ anus (I refer to this as anal sex). There was a further charge of sexual violation by way of oral sex, the specific occasion relating to the time Mr Charteris ejaculated into James’ mouth. There was another charge of sexual violation by way of anal sex.

[3]                 Two charges laid on a representative basis involved offending when Mr Charteris and James were at the Waimakariri River. One was a charge of sexual violation through oral sex. The other charge was of sexual violation by the connection of Mr Charteris’ mouth with James’ penis.

[4]                 The offending at Mr Charteris’ home and at the Waimakariri River occurred between 1 May 1999 and 31 December 1999.

[5]                 Mr Charteris was convicted on a specific charge of sexual violation by oral sex, alleged to have occurred at Port Levy between 1 August 1999 and 31 December 1999 when Mr Charteris and James were walking in the countryside.

[6]                 Mr Charteris was also convicted of an indecent assault which James said occurred when James and Mr Charteris were at the Pohara campground in the Tasman area between 1 January 2000 and 6 January 2000. James said Mr Charteris came into his tent and indecently assaulted him in a way that involved Mr Charteris playing with James’ genitals, skin on skin contact and Mr Charteris ejaculating onto James’ chest.

Background

[7]                 Mr Charteris was a work colleague of James’ mother. He became a friend of the family after James’ parents separated in 1998. In May 1999, Mr Charteris was aged 44. James was aged 12.

Continue reading Charteris v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Charteris v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1171
Case
[2021] NZHC 1171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Charteris appeals against his convictions and the sentence imposed on him following a trial in the District Court. Charteris was convicted of eight sexual offences against a young boy, James, who was between 11 and 14 years old at the time of the offending. He was acquitted of four charges. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. The appeal raises questions about the correctness of the trial Judge’s assessment of the evidence, and the sentence imposed. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.