Legal Research
Cases
Knight v The King

Knight v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 2011 22 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2024-463-64

[2024] NZHC 2011

GERRARD BAILEY KNIGHT

v

THE KING

Hearing: 11 July 2024

Appearances:

P Mitchell for Appellant

T Taane and E O'Brien for Respondent

Judgment:

22 July 2024

Reissued with redactions:

19 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 July 2024 at 4 pm,

………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Pollett Legal Limited

KNIGHT v R [2024] NZHC 2011 [22 July 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr Gerrard Knight appeals the decision of Judge J P Geoghegan in the District Court declining an application for a discharge without conviction, 1 having been found guilty as a result of a Judge alone trial on two charges of indecent assault.2 He was sentenced to six months’ home detention from 6 May 2024.3

[2] Mr Knight says that the District Court Judge erred in his application of the principles for discharging an offender without conviction under ss 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). He also appeals the Judge’s decision declining permanent name suppression.

The facts

[3] In early 2023 the East Coast of the North Island was struck by Cyclone Gabrielle with devastating consequences. Mr Knight held a leadership role within an emergency response team tasked to assist with the immediate aftermath. The victim of his offending was on the same team. [Redacted pursuant to s 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011]. At that time, Mr Knight was 56 years of age, and the victim was 37 years of age.

[4] The first incident occurred at lunchtime on 18 February 2023, when the team had stopped at a layby near Wairoa for a barbecue. The victim took a number of “selfies” and photographs of the surrounding area. The defendant then suggested that he and the victim be photographed together, which another member of the group volunteered to do. As the defendant and the victim posed for the photo, the defendant stood close to the victim and grabbed her buttocks with his hand. He then announced

1      Police v Knight [2024] NZDC 9951 [Sentencing Notes]. In an earlier reserved judgment dated 30 January 2024 (Police v Knight [2024] NZDC 1660 [Verdicts]) the Judge gave reasons for verdicts and concluded “Mr Knight is accordingly convicted on both charges”. Despite entry of the convictions the Judge went on, at sentencing, to consider a discharge without conviction. No point is taken in terms of the Court’s ability to entertain the appeal which, properly regarded, is one against both conviction and sentence. See Doyle v R [2022] NZCA 307 citing Jackson v R [2016] NZCA 627.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 135. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      There was a delay in starting the sentence granted by the Judge in order to allow Mr Knight to return to Christchurch.

to the group that he was “going for a piss” and said to the victim “why don’t you…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Knight v The King [2024] NZHC 2011
Case: [2024] NZHC 2011
Decision Date: 22 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gerrard Bailey Knight appeals against his conviction and sentence for two counts of indecent assault, as well as the refusal to discharge him without conviction and to permanently suppress his name. The offending occurred in the context of emergency response work following Cyclone Gabrielle, where Mr Knight, in a position of authority, assaulted a female colleague twice on the same day. The District Court found the offending to be serious and declined to grant a discharge without conviction or permanent name suppression. The appeal focuses on the District Court's application of the principles for discharging an offender without conviction under ss 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002, and the decision on permanent name suppression under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court found no material error in the District Court's assessment of the gravity of the offending, noting the serious nature of the assaults, the abuse of authority, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court also found no error in the District Court's assessment of the direct and indirect consequences of conviction, which included significant impairment of future employment prospects. The proportionality assessment was deemed correct, as the consequences of the conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Regarding name suppression, the court found that Mr Knight did not meet the statutory threshold for extreme hardship, and the principles of open justice outweighed the discretionary factors in favour of suppression. The appeals are dismissed.

Orders