R v Bond - [2016] NZHC 2561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-001438 [2016] NZHC 2561

THE QUEEN

v

DEVON CHARLES BOND

Hearing: 26 October 2016

Appearances:

C J Boshier for the Crown
A S Greig for the Defendant

Judgment:

26 October 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF NATION J

[1] Mr Bond, you may be seated.

[2] I have had very detailed reports from now three psychologists and a psychiatrist, including one who is engaged by your counsel. I have had very detailed written submissions from the Crown and from Mr Greig and they have referred me to various cases which I have to consider. So, obviously, I have had ample time to think very carefully about what has to be done in this situation. So, I am going to give my sentencing remarks now.

[3] As you will understand and as those who are in Court will understand from what you have already heard, there are a number of matters that need to be considered very carefully for me to impose the sentence that is appropriate in this instance and so I am taking considerable care in what I’ve got to say. It will take me
a little bit of time.

R v BOND [2016] NZHC 2561 [26 October 2016]

[4] Mr Bond, on 2 May 2016 you pleaded guilty to six charges under the Crimes Act 1961. On the charge of aggravated burglary, that is unlawfully entering a home with a weapon, the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. On the charge of assault with a weapon by threatening the victim with a knife, the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. On the charge of abduction, which involved tying up your victim and restraining her so you could have sex, the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment. There are three charges of sexual violation involving three sorts of violation, including rape. On each charge the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

[5] I have to determine what an appropriate finite sentence would be and if, instead of a sentence for a definite term, you must be sentenced to preventive detention. In my sentencing notes, I will refer to other judgments of the Court that I have considered but do not speak of in these remarks.

[6] I begin by acknowledging the victim of your offending. She showed considerable courage as she suffered this attack. Her victim impact report read to me is a distressing, direct but eloquent account of how your offending has changed her life, created a new normal which she has had to live with for the past 20-odd years and which, as she says, will go on forever. I also acknowledge her perceptiveness in the way she sought to explain how you could attack someone in such a vicious way and of the difference between the way in which you were able to live free of the consequences of your offending for so many years while she continued to suffer. I also acknowledge the determination and strength she has…

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 Bond

Details

AGLC: R v Bond [2016] NZHC 2561
Case: [2016] NZHC 2561
Decision Date: 26 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the defendant, Devon Charles Bond, was sentenced on charges of aggravated burglary, assault with a weapon, and abduction, among others. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, which included a home invasion, sexual violation, and the use of a weapon. The court had to decide on an appropriate finite sentence and whether the defendant should be sentenced to preventive detention. The court considered various factors, including the defendant's history of offending, the harm caused to the victims and the community, the risk of reoffending, and the defendant's efforts to address the causes of his offending.

The court determined that the defendant's offending was severe, with significant premeditation and violence involved. It was also noted that the defendant had a history of antisocial behaviour and had committed similar offences in the past. The court considered various reports from psychologists and a psychiatrist, which assessed the defendant's risk of reoffending. The court found that the defendant was at a moderate to high risk of reoffending, particularly if he did not participate in treatment and acknowledge the true nature of his offending.

Taking into account the defendant's history of offending, the harm caused to the victims and the community, and the risk of reoffending, the court decided to impose a finite sentence of imprisonment rather than preventive detention. The court also considered the potential for the Department of Corrections to apply for an extended supervision order with conditions imposed by the Parole Board for up to 10 years.

Final orders: The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 9 months for the three charges of sexual violation, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 8 years. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years for aggravated burglary, 2 years for assault with a weapon, and 3 years for abduction. All sentences were to be concurrent.

Orders