Legal Research
Cases
Pattison v Police

Pattison v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 2163 22 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000041

[2018] NZHC 2163

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence

BETWEEN

MARTIN GEORGE PATTISON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 August 2018

Counsel:

J D Munro for the Appellant

M S Jenkins for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 22 August 2018 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Counsel: J D Munro, Auckland

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Rotorua

PATTISON v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2163 [22 August 2018]

[1] Mr Pattison pleaded guilty to one representative charge of distributing,1 and one representative charge of possessing,2 an objectionable publication, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the publication was objectionable.

[2] The distribution charge related to two video files and one image involving children engaged in sexual activity, and one image of a child in an erotic pose. The possession charge related to 874 images of children undertaking sexual and non-sexual acts, including bestiality and sadism, computer-generated children undertaking sexual acts, and adult bestiality.

[3] Mr Pattison was sentenced to four years and two months’ imprisonment by Judge G C Hollister-Jones in the District Court at Rotorua.3 He appeals against sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred in his categorisation of the publications and adopted a starting point that was inconsistent with applicable High Court authorities. Those errors are said to have led to a sentence that was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

The offending

[4] Mr Pattison was part of an online chat group named “daughterlover”. He posted two images and two video files to this chat group:

(a)The first video file was 41 seconds long. It depicted a partially naked female child, estimated to be 12 to 13 years old, wearing only underpants and performing oral sex on an adult penis.

(b)The second video file was 29 seconds long. It depicted a naked female child estimated to be eight to 10 years old. There was an adult penis near the child’s face with an adult hand masturbating the penis. The penis then ejaculated over the child’s face and the child then performed oral sex on the penis.

1      Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, ss 123(1)(d) and 124(1).
2      Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, ss 131(1) and 131A(1).
3      R v Pattison [2018] NZDC 7373.

(c)One of the image files depicted a female child estimated to be 10 to 14 years old. The image is of the child’s face. Also in the image are two adult penises. One of the penises has ejaculated over the child’s face.

(d)The other image file depicted a female child estimated to be between eight and 12 years old. The image is of the child in an erotic pose while wearing a bra and underpants.

[5] On 2 March 2017, the police…

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 Pattison v Police

Details

AGLC: Pattison v Police [2018] NZHC 2163
Case: [2018] NZHC 2163
Decision Date: 22 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Martin George Pattison, appeals against the sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by the District Court for charges relating to the distribution and possession of objectionable publications. Pattison argues that the District Court Judge erred in his categorisation of the objectionable publications and that this led to a starting point that was inconsistent with applicable High Court authorities. Pattison claims that the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The appeal was heard by Justice Edwards on 22 August 2018. The court found that while there were errors in categorising the objectionable publications, these did not lead to a sentence that was manifestly excessive. The starting point of three years and six months for the distribution charge was found to be within range for offending of this nature. However, the uplift for the possession charges was considered excessive. The court found that an uplift of 12 months was appropriate, bringing the total global starting point to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The end sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment was found to be manifestly excessive and was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was substituted with a sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment.

Orders