R v Aitchison - [2017] NZHC 3218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2014-019-1004 [2017] NZHC 3218

THE QUEEN

v

JASON IAN AITCHISON

Hearing: 19 December 2017

Appearances:

D J McWilliam for the Crown
T Sutcliffe for the Defendant

Judgment:

19 December 2017

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

(Amended for publication to anonymise complainants)

Solicitors
Almao Douch, Hamilton
T Sutcliffe, Barrister, Hamilton

R v AITCHISON [2017] NZHC 3218 [19 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jason Ian Aitchison has been found guilty of one of charge of sexual violation by rape against each of two girls under s 128 of the Crimes Act 1961. Each was the daughter of a different former partner of Mr Aitchison. He was convicted on
8 November 2017. The offence of rape carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’

imprisonment. I sentence Mr Aitchison today.

Approach to sentencing

[2] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. I have particular regard to the purposes of:

(a) holding Mr Aitchison accountable for the harm done to his victims and the community;

(b)promoting in him a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of that harm;

(c) providing for the interests of the victims;

(d)denouncing his conduct and deterring others from committing similar offences; and

(e) protecting the community from him.

[3] I am also required to take into account principles of sentencing such as:

(a) the need to recognise the gravity of the offending, the degree of Mr

Aitchison’s culpability and the seriousness of his offending;

(b)the importance of consistency in dealing with similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances;

(c) the effect of the offending on the victims and the community; and

(d)the legal requirement that I must impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

What happened?

2004/2005 offending

[4] From 2004 to 2005 Mr Aitchison was living with his then-partner and her children, including her daughter. He was 31 to 32 years old. The girl was eight and nine years old at that time. The mother would travel for work, sometimes overnight. When she was away, Mr Aitchison looked after the kids. The girl regarded him like a father. Her evidence was he would call her to go into his and her mother’s room, bribing her with watching TV late or having sweets which her mother did not let her have. Mr Aitchison was convicted of a representative charge of taking the girl into a bedroom, placing her on the bed and raping her. The girl was left sore and bleeding from her vagina.

[5] The victim is now 21 and has provided an eloquent account of the effects of the offending on her. She is unemployed, trying to overcome high anxiety and depression and to forget her childhood. She has said she was not able to experience life as a normal teenager because of what happened to her and no compensation will suffice for…

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 Aitchison

Details

AGLC: R v Aitchison [2017] NZHC 3218
Case: [2017] NZHC 3218
Decision Date: 19 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aitchison involved the sentencing of Mr Jason Ian Aitchison, who had been found guilty of sexually violating two girls under 16 years of age. The first victim was the daughter of a former partner of Mr Aitchison and was aged between eight and nine at the time of the offence, which occurred between 2004 and 2005. The second victim was also a former partner's daughter, aged 13 at the time of the offence, which took place in 2012. Each offence carried a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the purposes of sentencing and the principles set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offending, including the vulnerability of the victims due to their age and intellectual disability, the breach of trust involved, and the harm caused to the victims. The court also considered the submissions of both counsel, who agreed that there were no aggravating or mitigating factors based on personal circumstances. The court determined a starting point of 12 years' imprisonment for each offence, and an uplift of two and a half years to reflect the other offence, resulting in a total sentence of 14 and a half years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and three months.

In summary, Mr Jason Ian Aitchison was sentenced to 14 and a half years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and three months, for two counts of sexual violation by rape against two girls under 16 years of age. The court considered the aggravating factors of the offending, the submissions of both counsel, and the purposes and principles of sentencing in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders