Legal Research
Cases
R v Bridgeman

R v Bridgeman

Case [2022] NZHC 450 14 March 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Premeditation

Vulnerability of Victim

Scale of the Offending

Guilty Plea

Remorse

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-002322

[2022] NZHC 450

THE QUEEN

v

DARRYL GRANT BRIDGEMAN

Hearing: 14 March 2022

Appearances:

J N Hamilton for the Crown

T C Tran and A N Gray for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 March 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hamilton Legal, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Hamilton Truc Tran Barrister, Hamilton

R v BRIDGEMAN [2022] NZHC 450 [14 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Bridgeman, you appear today for sentence on a charge of sexual violation by rape.1 Sexual violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

[2] You are currently serving a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 50 per cent, for separate serious sexual offending. You were sentenced on 5 June 2020 in the Hamilton District Court,2 having pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual violation by rape and two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, all relating to an incident on 27 February 2020.

[3] As a consequence of your arrest and conviction for the 2020 offending, DNA analysis identified you as the offender in a historic rape which took place in December 2006. You entered a guilty plea on 12 August 2021.3 That is the charge on which you are being sentenced today.

[4] The inevitable outcome of your sentencing will be a period of imprisonment. The main issue for the Court today is whether that should be a finite period of imprisonment or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. The Crown submits a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed. As required, the Court has ordered reports from three health assessors under s 88 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). On your behalf, Mr Tran submits a finite sentence is the proper outcome.

Offending

[5] I will begin by summarising the facts of your offending as contained in the Summary of Facts which you accepted when you entered your guilty plea.

[6] The offending occurred on 15 December 2006, when you were aged 36. The victim was a female, European tourist aged 42. You had never met her before. You observed the victim in the car park of a scenic walking track on the west coast of the

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a): Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      R v Bridgeman [2020] NZDC 10323.
3      A first strike warning was recorded on 16 March 2020 in relation to the 2020 offending; however, as the 2006 offending occurred prior to the three strikes legislation, and also occurred prior to the first strike warning, no strike warning was given upon conviction for the 2006 offending.

North Island. She was alone. You followed her up the hill track and walked past her. She made conversation briefly. She noticed you were carrying a white handled knife on your belt. She walked behind you on the track for a while, but your presence made her uneasy. She turned and began walking…

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 Bridgeman

Details

AGLC: R v Bridgeman [2022] NZHC 450
Case: [2022] NZHC 450
Decision Date: 14 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darryl Grant Bridgeman is before the High Court in Hamilton, New Zealand, for sentencing on a charge of sexual violation by rape. The victim in this case was a 42-year-old female tourist who was raped by Bridgeman on a walking track in December 2006. Bridgeman was already serving a nine-year sentence for separate sexual offences committed in 2020. The court needed to determine whether Bridgeman should receive a finite sentence of imprisonment or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. The Crown argued for preventive detention, while Bridgeman's counsel argued for a finite sentence. Bridgeman had a history of alcohol abuse and a troubled background, but the court found that he did not demonstrate genuine remorse for his actions. After considering the evidence, the court decided to impose a finite sentence of seven years and two months, to be served cumulatively with Bridgeman's existing sentence. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of the sentence to ensure adequate protection for the community. The court found that Bridgeman was likely to commit another sexual offence if released, but decided that a finite sentence was sufficient to protect the community.

Orders