N v The King - [2025] NZHC 1662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-23

CRI-2024-485-24 [2025] NZHC 1662

BETWEEN
N

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2025

Counsel:

H G de Groot for appellant

N Jamieson and R S Bedggood for respondent

Judgment:

19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Sentence appeal]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, N, appeals a sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Hobbs in the District Court on a range of charges.1 Unusually the primary focus of the appeal is not to the sentence imposed. Rather, it is the automatic registration of the appellant on the Child Sex Offender Register which followed as a result of the imposition of a custodial sentence. N argues his sexual offending was minor and lifetime registration is arbitrary and disproportionate.

[2] Judge Hobbs passed sentence on 6 March 2024. An appeal was filed in this Court on 4 April 2024. However, N sought to adjourn the appeal pending delivery of the Court of Appeal’s judgment Williams v Police.2 That judgment was delivered on

1 R v [N] [2024] NZDC 5096 [sentencing notes].
2 Williams v Police [2025] NZCA 15.

N v R [2025] NZHC 1662 [19 June 2025]

19 February 2025. In the intervening time the appellant completed his sentence of imprisonment. Faced with this obstacle Mr de Groot for the appellant argues the appropriate outcome on appeal is a conviction and discharge on two charges of sexual connection with a young person. If that were to occur registration would be a matter at the discretion of the Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. He argues exceptional circumstances exist warranting a non-custodial sentence and that the Court should not make an order for registration accordingly.

[3]I have concluded the appeal should be dismissed. My reasons follow.

The offending

[4] The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court related to 11 charges. These were:

(a)Two charges of sexual connection with a young person — one of which was a representative charge—contrary to s 134(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years’ imprisonment;

(b)Seven further police charges comprising;

(i)Strangulation and injuring with intent to injure concerning a different female victim, carrying maximum penalties of seven years and five years’ imprisonment respectively;

(ii)Possession of cannabis;3

(iii)Driving while forbidden;4

(iv)Dangerous driving;5

3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2), maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      Land Transport Act 1998, s 31(1)(a)(i) and (2), maximum penalty $1,000 fine.
5      Land Transport Act, s 35(1)(b), maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

(v)Dangerous driving while failing to stop;6

(vi)Resisting arrest;7 and

(c)Two Corrections charges of breaching community detention.8

[5] The summary of facts for the sexual offending records the appellant and victim were unknown to each other but met during a chance encounter in December 2021. The victim was 12 years old and had attended a youth…

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 N v The King

Details

AGLC: N v The King [2025] NZHC 1662
Case: [2025] NZHC 1662
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in N v The King was brought by the appellant, N, against a sentence of 11 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Hobbs in the District Court, focusing primarily on the appellant's automatic registration on the Child Sex Offender Register. N argued that his sexual offending was minor and that lifetime registration was arbitrary and disproportionate. The appeal was filed on 4 April 2024, but N sought to adjourn the appeal pending the Court of Appeal's judgment in Williams v Police, which was delivered on 19 February 2025. By the time of the appeal hearing, N had completed his sentence of imprisonment. The appellant contended that if the Court were to convict and discharge him on two charges of sexual connection with a young person, registration would be a matter at the discretion of the Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. The Court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Williams v Police allowed the District Court to take into account the impact of registration on the appellant when deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence, and whether the appellant's registration on the Child Sex Offender Register was arbitrary and disproportionate. The Court of Appeal had held that judicial discretion to take into account registration in sentencing was limited and that registration would only be taken into account in exceptional cases. The Court of Appeal also concluded that where the length of a prison sentence arrived at without regard to the impact of registration was under the home detention threshold, then in deciding between prison and home detention, the availability of a s 9 registration order might be taken into account in determining whether home detention would sufficiently meet the need for community protection. However, home detention should not be imposed for the purpose of avoiding registration.

The Court found that the present case was materially different from Williams. In Williams, the appellant had committed an offence under s 124A of the Crimes Act of exposing a young person to indecent material, and the maximum penalty was three years' imprisonment. In contrast, in the present case, the appellant had unprotected sexual intercourse with a child on more than one occasion, and the maximum penalty for the offence was 10 years' imprisonment. The Court also found that the appellant's registration on the Child Sex Offender Register was not arbitrary or disproportionate. The appellant had a history of serious sexual offending against children and a pattern of violence involving women and children. The Court was satisfied that the appellant posed "a risk to the sexual safety of 1 or more children or children generally." The Court also noted that the reporting obligations were limited and generally involved an information sharing requirement. The appellant may find reporting compliance difficult, but after 15 years he may apply to the District Court to have his obligations indefinitely suspended.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders