R v Britz - [2013] NZHC 1415

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-092-1185

CRI-2008-019-3726 [2013] NZHC 1415

THE QUEEN

v

JACOB ADRIAAN BRITZ

Hearing: 13 June 2013

Counsel: G Kayes for the Crown
A Holland for Mr Britz

Sentencing: 13 June 2013

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Mr G Kayes, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Mr A Holland, Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v BRITZ [2013] NZHC 1415 [13 June 2013]

[1] It will take me a little bit of time to explain the sentence. Mr Britz, you can remain seated. I will explain the sentence to you and to everybody else in the Court. At the end of it you will need to stand when I impose the formal sentence.

[2] You appear for sentence for the following sexual offences against three victims – and I will refer to them as victim A, B and C because their names are not to be mentioned:

(a) The first was assault with intent to sexually violate. This was in

February 2004 against victim A.

(b)In March and April 2007 you committed five offences against victim B – two of rape, two of unlawful sexual connection by anal rape and one of unlawful sexual connection with an object. Both of the offences of vaginal rape and of anal rape were representative – you committed these offences on a number of occasions firstly between 10 and 12 March 2007 and again between 17 March and 24 April 2007.

(c) In January 2008 you committed two offences against victim C – unlawful sexual connection by anal rape and unlawful sexual connection with an object.

[3] Mr Britz, these are serious crimes. They are very serious.

[4] There are three possible options for sentencing you today – in broad terms, three options. I could impose a finite term of imprisonment – a fixed term in jail. If I am satisfied that the term is not sufficient to protect the public, I can impose a sentence of preventive detention – that is, a sentence that applies to you for the rest of your life. There is a different approach to that, which I will come to. Finally, because you have an intellectual disability, I could order that you receive care in a secure facility with or without a prison sentence.

[5] In your case the assessment of an appropriate sentence has presented considerable difficulties. This is because of the tension between the need to impose

a sentence which adequately deals with crimes which are particularly bad and which adequately protects the public, but also takes appropriate account of the fact of your intellectual disability and progress that has been made with some treatment.

[6] I have received and read a reasonably large number of reports from psychiatrists and psychologists and from the compulsory care co-ordinator, Mr Wyatt. These have been provided to assess preventive detention under s…

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 Britz

Details

AGLC: R v Britz [2013] NZHC 1415
Case: [2013] NZHC 1415
Decision Date: 13 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Britz involved sentencing for a series of serious sexual offences committed by the defendant, Jacob Adriaan Britz, against three victims. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the sentencing hearing on 13 June 2013. Britz had been found guilty of multiple charges, including assault with intent to sexually violate, rape, and unlawful sexual connection. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offences, Britz's intellectual disability, and the need for public protection.

The court identified three primary sentencing options: a finite term of imprisonment, preventive detention, or a care order under the Intellectual Disability Act. After reviewing extensive medical reports and expert opinions, the court decided against preventive detention, opting instead for a determinate sentence combined with compulsory care under the Intellectual Disability Act. The court sentenced Britz to 12 years and 4 months imprisonment for the offences committed in 2007 and 2008, with a minimum imprisonment period of 8 years. Britz was also sentenced to 2 years and 5 months for the 2004 offence, to be served concurrently. The court directed that appropriate treatment and monitoring would continue post-release to ensure public safety while Britz receives necessary care.

The court's decision balanced the severity of the crimes with Britz's intellectual disability, aiming to provide both punishment and rehabilitation. The sentence reflects the court's commitment to protecting the public while addressing the defendant's specific needs and the potential for rehabilitation through continued treatment.

Orders