NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE
CRI-2022-418-06
[2022] NZHC 2707
BETWEEN
JOSEPH HOPE
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
CRI-2022-418-07
BETWEEN
JOSEPH HOPE Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing:
8 September 2022
Appearances:
M Zintl for Appellant
J E Lancaster for Respondent
Judgment:
19 October 2022
JUDGMENT OF EATON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 19 October 2022 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
HOPE v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 2707 [19 October 2022]
Introduction
[1] On 23 June 2022, Mr Joseph Hope was sentenced in the District Court to two years and nine months’ imprisonment on a charge of sexual violation1 and three charges of indecent assault on a female under 12 years old,2 one of which was a representative charge.3 Mr Hope appeals against this sentence on the grounds that the starting point was too high and further discounts were available for co-operation with the authorities and previous good character, such that an end sentence of home detention is appropriate.
[2] Mr Hope also appeals against the refusal to grant permanent suppression of his name and identifying particulars.
Facts
[3] Mr Hope was a resident at the Gloriavale Christian Community. He was born into and raised within the community. […]. This offending was disclosed following a screening process of all female residents in the Gloriavale Community between the ages of five and 17 years for sexual offending, completed by Police and Oranga Tamariki in May 2021. During this process, on […], the victim disclosed that they had been touched inappropriately by Mr Hope sometime between […]. The victim described the offending occurring over a one to two-year period, when they would have been […].
[4] Mr Hope, on becoming aware the victim had spoken to Oranga Tamariki, presented himself voluntarily to the police station and admitted the facts as outlined below, claiming full responsibility for his actions. He apologised to the victim in person before making the decision to go and speak to police.
[5] The first indecent assault took place when Mr Hope was in his bedroom watching a movie with his wife, their children and the victim. Mr Hope was positioned behind his wife and their children. He started touching the victim, moving his hand
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(b) and 128B: maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 132(3): maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3 R v Hope [2022] NZDC 11639.
under her dress and rubbing his hand up her leg towards her vagina for approximately two minutes. Once his hand was near the top of her legs, he pushed his hand inside the victim’s underwear and began touching her vagina. The victim knew she needed to get away, so told Mr Hope she needed to go…
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 Hope v Police
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hope v Police [2022] NZHC 2707
Case
[2022] NZHC 2707
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Joseph Hope appeals against his sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment on charges of sexual violation and indecent assault against a child under 12 years of age. He also appeals against the refusal to grant permanent suppression of his name and identifying particulars. The District Court Judge identified the charge of sexual violation as the lead offence and considered the aggravating factors of victim vulnerability, breach of trust, an element of premeditation, and harm caused to the victim. The Judge adopted a starting point of four years' imprisonment for the sexual violation charge and an uplift of 18 months for the indecency charges, resulting in a global starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment. The Judge allowed various discounts, including a five per cent discount for co-operation with the authorities, but did not allow a discount for previous good character. The High Court found that the end sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Court also dismissed the appeal against the refusal to grant permanent suppression of Mr Hope's name and identifying particulars. The Court found that the threshold for granting name suppression had not been met, as there was no evidence of any particular extreme hardship to Mr Hope or his family beyond that which would normally stem from publication of a defendant's name. The Court also found that the suppression orders adequately mitigated any risk of identifying the victim.