Jackson v Crown Law Office - [2014] NZHC 2425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2014-406-9 [2014] NZHC 2425

BETWEEN
VAUGHAN PETER JACKSON

Appellant

AND

CROWN LAW OFFICE Respondent

Hearing: 2 October 2014

Counsel:

R Harrison for Appellant
S O'Donoghue for Respondent

Judgment:

3 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 October 2014 at 1.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Inangahua Chambers, Blenheim for Appellant
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Nelson for Respondent

JACKSON v CROWN LAW OFFICE [2014] NZHC 2425 [3 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to one representative charge of sexual connection with a young person under 161 and was sentenced by Judge Walker in the District Court to two years and seven months’ imprisonment. He appeals against sentence on the basis that the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors.

Facts

[2] The appellant was forty three years old at the time of the offending. He met the complainant at ANZAC commemorations when he gave her and some others a ride in his jeep. She was 13. She began contacting him by text. The appellant replied and, over time, these texts became increasingly intimate. The pair exchanged intimate photographs of themselves. The appellant then travelled from Blenheim to Nelson and took part in sexual activity with the complainant (who had turned 14) at least five times between 27 July 2013 and 13 October 2013. The sexual activity included vaginal, oral and anal sex on the victim and the victim performing oral sex on the appellant.

[3] The offending became known to the complainant’s friend and subsequently known to her school. The complainant told the appellant she had been interviewed by staff at her school and that the Police would be involved. He advised her to tell the truth.

[4] The impact on the complainant has been significant. She feels responsible for the offending and for the consequences on the appellant. She is self-harming and has reduced her educational involvement. There has, understandably, been a considerable effect on her family.

Starting point

[5] There is no guideline judgment for this type of offending. In R v Johnson the

Court of Appeal stated that s 134(1) is considered part of a prophylactic regime

designed to protect vulnerable young people from being sexually exploited by adult offenders:2

… young girls who consent to sexual activity with considerably older men frequently become disturbed when they reach an age where they have full understanding of what they have been involved in… The importance of deterring adults from having sex with children and young persons was emphasised when … the maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was increased to ten years…

[6] The Court of Appeal in Johnson further commented that a four year starting point is appropriate where the aggravating features are: abuse of trust; a significant age gap between the offender and the victim; full penetrative sex on a number of occasions; and significant adverse…

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 Jackson v Crown Law Office

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Crown Law Office [2014] NZHC 2425
Case: [2014] NZHC 2425
Decision Date: 3 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, Jackson v Crown Law Office, involved the appellant, Vaughan Peter Jackson, contesting the sentence imposed by Judge Walker in the District Court. Jackson pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16 and was sentenced to two years and seven months’ imprisonment. He appealed the sentence on the grounds that the starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors. The nature of the dispute centred around the severity of the starting point for sentencing and the adequacy of the discount applied for mitigating factors such as remorse, guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, efforts at rehabilitation, and previous good character.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the starting point of four years’ imprisonment was appropriate given the absence of specific aggravating features and whether the discount for mitigating factors was sufficient. The court examined whether the absence of a breach of trust and the absence of abusive or demeaning behaviour justified a lower starting point, as suggested by Jackson’s counsel. Additionally, the court assessed the discount given for mitigating factors, including remorse, the guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, efforts at rehabilitation, and previous good character.

The court concluded that the starting point of four years’ imprisonment was within the appropriate range for this type of offending. While there was no specific breach of trust identified, the court found that the appellant, as a considerably older adult, was in a position to control the relationship from the outset and deliberately engaged in targeting the 14-year-old complainant. The court found that the Judge appropriately considered the aggravating factors, such as the significant age gap, the nature of the sexual activity, and the impact on the complainant, and thus the starting point was appropriate. The court also found that the discount for mitigating factors, which amounted to 35.41 per cent, was generous, particularly given the appellant's initial attempt to minimise the number of occasions during which sexual activity occurred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of two years and seven months’ imprisonment was upheld.

Orders