R v A

Case [2018] NZHC 2024 9 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS/

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-2017-092-8389

[2018] NZHC 2024

THE QUEEN

v

“A”

Hearing: 9 August 2018

Appearances:

R Warren for the Crown

D Dufty and R Patel for the Defendant

Sentence:

9 August 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Counsel: D Dufty, Auckland

R v “A” [2018] NZHC 2024 [9 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr A you appear today for sentence after having accepted a sentence indication of 15 years and two months’ imprisonment given by me on 2 March 2018.1 You pleaded guilty on 12 March 2018 to the following 14 charges:

(a)Two representative charges of sexual violation by rape;2

(b)Six representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;3

(c)Four representative charges of assault with a weapon;4

(d)One representative charge of male assaults female;5 and

(e)One charge of attempted sexual violation by rape.6

[2]Sexual violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.7

[3] As I made clear in my sentence indication, any indication I gave was subject to this Court’s decision on whether it should impose a sentence of preventive detention.8

[4] Ms Warren, for the Crown, submits that a finite sentence coupled with the prospect of an extended supervision order (ESO) would provide adequate protection for society in this case. In any event, Ms Warren submits that a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years and six months’, or 56 per cent, should be imposed.

[5] Mr Dufty, on your behalf, agrees with the Crown’s submission that a finite sentence would provide sufficient protection for the community. But he instead

1      R v A [2018] NZHC 321.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a).
3      Section 128(1)(b).
4      Section 202C(1)(a).
5      Section 194(b).
6      Section 129(1).
7      Section 128B(1).
8      R v A, above n 1, at [59].

submits that an appropriate minimum period of imprisonment would be 50 per cent of the end sentence.

[6] As this Court may impose a sentence of preventive detention regardless of what counsel submit, that is what I must decide today.9

[7] Before I determine whether I will do so, I must first identify what the appropriate finite sentence should be.

[8]I will begin by outlining the facts of your offending.

Factual background

[9] You accepted the sentence indication which was based on an agreed summary of facts. I adopt and set out below my earlier summary of your offending:10

[8] [Mr A], you moved to New Zealand from Australia in January 2015. You moved into a property [in Auckland], with three of your daughters, namely [Daughters A, B and C]. Their mother, [your wife], arrived in March 2015 with your youngest daughter, [Daughter D]. After that, [your wife] continued to travel back and forth between Australia and New Zealand.

[9] I will set out your ……

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 R v A

Details

AGLC: R v A [2018] NZHC 2024
Case: [2018] NZHC 2024
Decision Date: 9 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v A involved sentencing of a man who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual and physical assault against his four daughters. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, including whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court considered the starting point of 20 years and three months' imprisonment, adjusted for personal circumstances, restorative justice, and guilty pleas, resulting in an end finite sentence of 13 years and nine months' imprisonment. The court also determined a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, or six years, 10 months, and two weeks, before eligibility for parole. After considering the reports of two health assessors, the court decided against imposing a sentence of preventive detention, concluding that a finite sentence would provide adequate protection for society and allow the offender to address his tendencies towards sexual offending against children.

Orders