King v Police - [2021] NZHC 1652

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000251

[2021] NZHC 1652

BETWEEN
SOPHIE KING

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 5 July 2021

Appearances:

A Wei for Appellant

A Mackenzie for Respondent

Judgment:

6 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Appeal against conviction

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 July 2021 at 11.30 am, Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: A Wei, Auckland

KING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1652 [6 July 2021]

[1] Sophie King pleaded guilty to two charges of accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes.

[2] Judge S J Maude declined her application for a discharge without conviction and imposed a sentence of 18 months’ intensive supervision.1 In addition the Judge directed a notional harm repayment of $500 to each of the two victims of her offending.

[3] Ms King appeals against the Judge’s refusal to discharge her without conviction.

[4] At the time of the offending Ms King was a teacher at an Intermediate School in the North Island. By deception she presented herself as a male on a social media platform to two fellow female teachers. Through the fictitious profile Ms King engaged with the victims and built online romantic relationships. Ms King lured the first victim B into sending her a number of online photos of herself naked and semi naked. B also sent photos of her semi naked niece to Ms King. The offending in relation to B involved contact over a period of 15 months. Ms King’s involvement with the second victim was of a similar nature but shorter lived. It was for three months.

[5] During the contact with B Ms King sent photographs of a male with his chest and penis exposed (but not showing any photos of the face). The photos were cropped versions of an Australia rugby league player. Ms King told both victims that she knew the fictitious person and effectively vouched for him.

[6] Until she discovered the truth, Ms B believed she was in a relationship with the online character created by Ms King. Both victims have suffered panic attacks and ongoing anxiety. They regarded Ms King as a friend. The offending only ceased when Ms B’s family became involved. Ultimately B reported it to Netsafe and the school at which they all worked.

1 NZ Police v King [2021] NZDC 8425.

Judgment

[7] In declining the application for discharge without conviction, the Judge considered that, in light of the breaches of trust and the foreseeable impact on the victims, the starting level for the gravity of the offence was upper moderate. The Judge reduced that down to moderate after taking account of the psychological profile which noted the abuse Ms King had herself suffered, her dissociative identity disorder, and the steps she was…

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 King v Police

Details

AGLC: King v Police [2021] NZHC 1652
Case: [2021] NZHC 1652
Decision Date: 6 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sophie King, a former teacher, appeals against the refusal of the District Court to grant her a discharge without conviction for charges of accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes. King had engaged in deceptive online communications with two fellow female teachers under a male pseudonym, resulting in significant emotional harm to the victims. The District Court imposed a sentence of 18 months’ intensive supervision and ordered a notional harm repayment of $500 to each victim.

The appeal focuses on the District Court's refusal to discharge King without conviction, a decision based on the gravity of the offending and the foreseeable impact on the victims. The Court of Appeal must determine if there was a material error in the District Court's assessment of the gravity of the offending, the consequences of conviction, and whether those consequences are out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

The Court of Appeal found that the gravity of King's offending, while serious, was appropriately assessed at low to moderate, considering mitigating factors such as her dissociative identity disorder and her steps to address her mental health issues. The consequences of conviction, including the impact on her employment prospects, travel, and mental health, were also assessed at low to moderate. The Court held that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the District Court had correctly balanced the factors under section 107 of the relevant legislation, and there was no material error in the District Court's decision. The appeal was dismissed, and King's conviction and sentence stand.

Orders