R v Adams - [2018] NZHC 1386

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PROHIBITED BY S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-1604

[2018] NZHC 1386

THE QUEEN

v

TAGA DAVID KEEPA ADAMS

Hearing: 12 June 2018

Counsel:

F Culliney and S Teppett or Crown J O’Halloran for Prisoner

Judgment:

12 June 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v ADAMS [2018] NZHC 1386 [12 June 2018]

[1] Mr Adams, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary,1 one charge of aggravated wounding2 and one charge of abduction for the purpose of unlawful sexual connection.3

[2] You have been given your first strike warning. I now turn to sentence you on these charges. The Crown has sought a sentence of preventive detention. I therefore propose to sentence you in two parts. First, I will fix a finite sentence. I will then turn to consider whether you should be subject to a sentence of preventive detention.

Facts

[3]You have pleaded guilty to a summary of facts which are as follows.

[4] At about 2.00 pm on Monday, 13 February 2017, you saw the victim of your offending out walking. You drove ahead and lay in waiting for her to pass. As she did, you violently placed her in a headlock and began to choke her. She was unable to scream as she was being held by her throat so forcefully.

[5] You then dragged her a short distance to your car. You opened the passenger side door of the car and pushed her head first into the foot-well of the front passenger seat. She screamed, and in response, you choked her to stop her screaming. She was unable to breathe during this choking. When you released your grip, she screamed again. In response to this, you gouged her eyes with your fingers, pushing your fingers deep into her eye sockets. She stopped screaming due to the pain she was suffering from this action. You then drove away with the victim stuck in the passenger foot- well.

[6] As you drove away, you used a free hand and touched the victim’s genital area on the outside of her clothing. You then pushed your hand beneath her shorts and underwear and for a short time touched her on the skin in the area around her left hip and front area of her pelvic bone.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a); the maximum penalty for which is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 191(1)(a); the maximum penalty for which is 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 208; the maximum penalty for which is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[7] At this point the victim said to you, “Please don’t kill me.” You continued to drive on. You had driven less than a kilometre when the victim grabbed the door handle and opened it as the car was underway. She took the opportunity and rolled herself…

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 Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [2018] NZHC 1386
Case: [2018] NZHC 1386
Decision Date: 12 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taga David Keepa Adams, the appellant, has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, aggravated wounding, and abduction for the purpose of unlawful sexual connection. The case was heard by Whata J in the Auckland Registry of the High Court of New Zealand on June 12, 2018. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention on the appellant, who had a history of violent and sexual offending, or to sentence him to a lengthy determinate term with a minimum period of imprisonment. The appellant was on parole at the time of the present offending, which involved a violent abduction and an attempted rape.

The court examined the appellant's personal circumstances, including his troubled upbringing and extensive criminal history. Reports from psychiatrists and the Probation and After-care Service (PAC) concluded that the appellant presented a high risk of violent and sexual reoffending due to his background, prior offending, self-reported attitudes, and maladjustment. However, both psychiatrists recommended an indeterminate sentence as the preferred mechanism to manage the risks presented by the appellant.

Considering the factors outlined in the Sentencing Act, the court determined that while the appellant's offending was serious, it was not yet at a level that warranted a sentence of preventive detention. The court noted that the appellant had not yet benefited from a treatment plan specifically designed to address his needs, and his self-reporting indicated a willingness to confront his violent propensity. Therefore, the court imposed a lengthy determinate sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment, along with the prospect of extended supervision if the appellant continued to present a risk on release.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant was sentenced to six years and five months' imprisonment for the charge of abduction for the purpose of sexual connection, with a requirement to serve 60% of this sentence. Additionally, the appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for both the burglary and aggravated wounding charges, to be served concurrently with the lead sentence.

Orders