Crammond v The the King - [2022] NZHC 3444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2022-442-16

[2022] NZHC 3444

BETWEEN
DALE WILLIAM CRAMMOND

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 December 2022

Appearances:

S J Zindel for the Appellant

J M Webber for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 December 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel
Zindels, Nelson
O’Donoghue Webber, Nelson

CRAMMOND v R [2022] NZHC 3444 [15 December 2022]

What happened?

[1] Mr Dale Crammond, aged 32, pleaded guilty to seven charges of possession of objectionable publications. One related to video files discovered on his phone in November 2020. The other six resulted from him uploading content to five different cloud-based internet storage accounts between March 2019 to June 2020. These images and videos involved: sexual activity between adults and children aged one to 12 years; sexual abuse and exploitation of children aged from two to 12 years; and sexual exploitation of two girls between 12 and 14 years engaged in sexual activity with dogs. There were 116 visually unique images and video files, of which 78 involved penetrative sexual activity with children.

[2] On 16 February 2022, Judge A A Zohrab gave Mr Crammond a sentencing indication. He indicated he would adopt a starting point of 34 months’ imprisonment, discounted by 15 per cent for a guilty plea, resulting in an end sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment. The Judge indicated that engaging with a rehabilitative programme might result in further discounts, but Mr Crammond would need to demonstrate serious engagement and acknowledgement of his unhealthy interest in children and some demonstrable hard work. Mr Crammond accepted the indication and pleaded guilty. The Judge sentenced him to 26 months’ imprisonment on 14 June 2022.1 That involved a 15 per cent discount for the guilty plea and a three-month discount to account for Mr Crammond’s time on electronically monitored (EM) bail. Mr Crammond appeals the sentence and applies for the appeal to be heard out of time due to delays in finding new counsel. I grant the application for an extension on that basis.

Submissions

[3] Mr Zindel, for Mr Crammond, submits the Judge erred in declining to grant further discounts, which would have enabled taking a chance on home detention. That, he says, would be appropriate given Mr Crammond’s offending occurred while he was addicted to alcohol and drugs, with which he has made good progress in custody and on EM bail. Mr Crammond could not get on the STOP programme prior to sentencing.

1 R v Crammond [2022] NZDC 11105.

Sentencing is discretionary and could have been conditional on satisfactory completion of the course. Mr Zindel also seeks to remove Mr Crammond’s name from the child sex offenders’ register.

[4] Mr Webber, for the Crown, submits the sentence followed a clear sentencing indication, the evidence was overwhelming, the discounts were appropriate, no further discounts are appropriate and participation in a rehabilitation programme is not appropriate because Mr Crammond does not accept he needs assistance. The Judge made…

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 Crammond v The the King

Details

AGLC: Crammond v The the King [2022] NZHC 3444
Case: [2022] NZHC 3444
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crammond v The King, the appellant, Dale William Crammond, challenged his 26-month imprisonment sentence, which he received for multiple charges of possession of objectionable publications. Crammond pleaded guilty to possessing videos and images involving sexual activities with children, including those under the age of 12, as well as other explicit content. The Nelson Registry of the High Court of New Zealand heard the appeal, with S J Zindel representing the appellant and J M Webber representing the respondent. Crammond argued that the sentence was too harsh and that further discounts could have allowed for a conditional sentence of home detention, which he believed would be more suitable given his addiction issues and progress in custody. The Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate and in line with the original sentencing indication.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was within the appropriate range for the severity of the crime and whether the trial judge erred in not granting further discounts, which could have led to a conditional sentence. The court needed to consider whether Crammond's denial of his unhealthy interest in children and reluctance to accept responsibility justified the provision of rehabilitation opportunities that were not part of the original sentencing indication. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether Crammond was eligible for removal from the child sex offenders' register.

The High Court, presided over by Palmer J, found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge's approach was appropriate. The court noted that the starting point for the sentence was on the lower side, considering similar cases reviewed by Downs J. The court further determined that Crammond's denial of his issues and reluctance to accept responsibility made it difficult to justify providing rehabilitation opportunities that were not part of the original sentencing indication. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 26-month imprisonment sentence, finding no grounds for further discounts or conditional sentencing. Additionally, the court ruled that Crammond was not eligible for removal from the child sex offenders' register.

Orders