Knight v R - [2021] NZHC 2372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000357

[2021] NZHC 2372

BETWEEN
LOGAN JAMES KNIGHT

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 7 September 2021

Counsel:

BJ Meyer for Appellant HJ Bell for Respondent

Judgment:

10 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 10 September 2021 at 1 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. BJ Meyer, Auckland.

KNIGHT v R [2021] NZHC 2372 [10 September 2021]

An appeal in relation to sexual offending

[1] Judge B A Gibson imposed a two-year prison sentence on Logan Knight for two offences of sexual conduct with a young person under 16.1 Mr Knight appeals. An appeal in this context must be allowed if the appeal Court is satisfied there is an error in the sentence and a different one should be imposed.2 Or, in short, if the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[2] The offending occurred 2018. The 14-year-old victim was babysitting, overnight, at a home occupied by Mr Knight and his girlfriend. The victim went to sleep on a couch in the lounge. Mr Knight went into the lounge and told her he used to be a stripper. The victim asked him to leave. Instead, Mr Knight violated her with his fingers and tongue. Police laid charges of sexual violation 5 March 2020. The Crown maintained those charges but on 22 April 2021 amended them to sexual conduct with a young person.4 Mr Knight pleaded guilty the same day.

Sentencing

[3] Judge Gibson adopted a two-year, eight-month starting point. He deducted 10 percent for Mr Knight’s youth—he was 19 when he committed the offences. He also deducted 15 percent for the guilty pleas. The Judge declined to commute the 24-month sentence to home detention or allow leave for Mr Knight to seek that sentence should an address become available.

Argument and analysis

[4] Mr Knight does not dispute the starting point; he focusses on deductions and home detention. On his behalf, Mr Meyer contends the youth discount should have been greater. On this topic, the Judge said:5

1      R v Knight [2021] NZDC 13011.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1); maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      R v Knight, above n 1, at [8].

You were 19 years of age and normally you could call on a discount for previous good character but you have appeared in the Youth Court, there was offending at your bail address that is alleged while this occurred and youth discounts are not automatic in any event. They are normally given where the offending involves a person being led into the offending by an older and more experienced offender or where there is something in relation to the character of the offender which the Court considers could be rewarded by way of a discount.

[5] The reference to alleged offending at the bail…

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 Knight v R

Details

AGLC: Knight v R [2021] NZHC 2372
Case: [2021] NZHC 2372
Decision Date: 10 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Knight v R, Logan Knight appeals a two-year prison sentence imposed by Judge B A Gibson for two offences of sexual conduct with a young person under 16. The appeal was heard on 7 September 2021 and the judgment delivered on 10 September 2021. The appeal concerns the sentence imposed for these serious offences, which occurred in 2018 when the victim, a 14-year-old girl, was babysitting at Mr Knight’s home. Mr Knight violated her with his fingers and tongue while she was sleeping on the couch. The Crown laid charges on 5 March 2020, which Mr Knight pleaded guilty to on 22 April 2021. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if there were any errors in the sentence, specifically in the application of discounts for youth and electronically monitored bail, as well as the refusal to consider home detention.

The court found that while Mr Knight’s age should have entitled him to a discount, the seriousness of the offending did not support a significant reduction. The court also held that the judge was correct to not give a discount for electronically monitored bail due to multiple breaches. The court found that the judge was entitled to consider the alleged charges while Mr Knight was on electronically monitored bail, even though these charges were not proven. The court further held that the discount for guilty pleas was appropriate given the plea arrangement, and the judge was not obliged to allow Mr Knight to apply for home detention. The court emphasised the seriousness of the sexual offending and the impact on the victim, justifying the sentence imposed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original two-year prison sentence was upheld.

Orders