R v Bampton CA166/06

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Michael John Bampton appealed against his sentence for various criminal charges. Mr Bampton had pleaded guilty to one count of sexual violation (rape), one count of stupefaction for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime, and one count of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The trial judge sentenced Mr Bampton to eight years imprisonment for the rape charge, six years for the stupefaction charge, and two years for the theft of the motor vehicle, with all sentences running concurrently. The trial judge also set a minimum non-parole period of two-thirds of the sentence. Mr Bampton appealed against the imposition of the minimum non-parole period.

The appeal raised the issue of whether the trial judge made an error of principle when deciding to impose the non-parole period. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by considering the need to protect the community and the personal characteristics of the offender in determining the seriousness of the offence. Instead, the Court should have focused solely on the characteristics of the offence itself when assessing whether the case was sufficiently serious to warrant a minimum non-parole period. Furthermore, the Court found that the minimum non-parole period set by the trial judge was too high, given the early guilty plea, and should not have been more than half of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the minimum non-parole period set by the trial judge. The Court replaced it with a minimum non-parole period of four years, while confirming the rest of the sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the rape offence was very serious, involving several aggravating features such as premeditation, abuse of a relationship of trust and confidence, use of a stupefying substance, binding the victim's hands and feet, reference to a knife, callousness in abandoning the victim in an unfamiliar location, and theft of the victim's car.