R v Buchanan

[2016] NZHC 294

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-070-2821 [2016] NZHC 294

THE QUEEN

v

RAYMOND BRUCE BUCHANAN

Hearing:	26 February 2016
Appearances:	HA Wrigley for the Crown AC Balme for the Defendant
Sentence:	26 February 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Buchanan [2016] NZHC 294 [26 February 2016]

[1]      Raymond  Bruce  Buchanan:  you  appear  for  sentencing  after  having  been found  guilty  by  a  jury  of  22  sexual  offences  and  two  violence  offences  on

15 September last year.   Your sentencing has been delayed far longer than would normally  be  acceptable  because  of  the  need  to  obtain  information  about  your financial position, which is relevant to the important question of reparation.   I’ll come to that in a moment; first, I need to say something about your offending.

[2]      Because of the sentences I intend to impose, I need to describe your crimes at greater length than would usually be necessary.     It is difficult to imagine more serious offending of this kind.

Factual background

[3]      In 1980, in the Wairarapa, you began living with a woman who had three children from an earlier relationship:  the elder and younger male victims, and a daughter.  Another female child was born during your relationship.  You married the victims’ mother in 1982.

Offending against the elder victim, J

[4]      Between 1981 and 1985, you sexually abused the elder victim, J, on a regular basis; he was aged between seven and 12 years old during this period. The offending occurred in J’s bedroom and elsewhere in the house when you and he were home alone; at your workplace; while camping with the family; and while staying at a hut.

[5]      Your offending on J began with your getting into bed with him late at night, usually after you came home drunk from the pub.  You would touch his penis.  You would also expose your penis and place it between J’s legs, his buttocks and touch it around his anus.  You would require him to touch your genitalia and masturbate you. You would ejaculate onto J, or in the bed or in your own hand.

[6]      When J and you were alone in the house you would suggest he should be undressed; you would frequently touch him around his genitals, even when others were home, but in secret.  He said you would tell him how much you loved him and would treat him like he was your girlfriend.  Your offending developed into forcing

him to take your penis into his mouth on many occasions, on a regular basis, once or twice a week. You also sodomised J on numerous occasions.  He referred to sodomy on three occasions which he could clearly recall, but it is plain from his evidence that you offended in that way more frequently than that, if not on every one out of three encounters, as he said at one point.

[7]      On one occasion, which J recalled vividly, you took him to your workplace. He was playing outside and it was raining.   When he came into your office, you made him strip out of his wet clothes and put on your swandri with nothing else on underneath.  You started to touch his genitals. You then tried to get J to perform oral sex on you.  He protested, saying that he did not like the taste.  You told him you would put tomato sauce on your penis.  You then sodomised J until you ejaculated in his anus. Your assault caused him immense pain and bleeding from his anus.

[8]      You used psychological pressure to make J comply with the sexual acts you wished to carry out.  Often, you would try to entice compliance through the use of games.  Later, when J was older and more resistant to your demands, you began to use violence to get your way.  This included punching him and putting your hands around his throat and choking him. You were careful, however, to avoid causing J an injury which might alert others.

[9]      J describes sexual offending of some kind happening regularly until your motor accident on 15 June 1985 when he was 12 years old.  He left home to live with his father shortly after that, in order to avoid being anywhere near you.  Throughout the period of your offending against J he lived in daily fear of what you would do to him.

Offending against the younger victim, P

[10]    Between 1981 and 1988, and again in 1991, you committed many sexual offences against the younger victim, P.  He was aged between four and 12 during the course of this offending.

[11]     As with your offending against J, you would climb into bed with P and grope his penis.  The offending was aggressive and painful.  P recalled that it felt as if you

were trying to rip his genitals off.  Even when he was aged only around four or five, you would insert your finger or fingers into his anus.

[12]     Often, when you heard P go to the bathroom at night, you would get up and be waiting for him when he returned to his bedroom.  In order to avoid these night- time encounters, P chose to urinate in the corner of his bedroom or in the cupboard instead.

[13]     Later, when he was aged around six or seven, and at least once a fortnight after that, you made P submit to anal intercourse.  You would force him to lie face down on the bed, pushing his face into the pillow and holding him down by placing your forearm across his back and shoulders.  You would stab your fingers into P’s anus, after which you would force your penis into his anus and ejaculate inside it. The brutality of your attacks caused P to suffer from constant anal bleeding.  During this ongoing offending, P cried and protested.  You told him that he was not to speak to anyone of these events or else somebody would get hurt.

[14]     From its inception the offending against P was violent, notwithstanding that he was much younger than J was when you began offending against him.   This should be contrasted with your attitude towards J and the way in which you offended against him.  There was evidence that you told J you were in love with him.  J said you treated him like a girlfriend at times and he was almost guilty that he was having an affair with you and so replacing his mother.  That is consistent with his mother’s evidence that you displayed little sexual interest in her throughout your relationship.

[15]    With P, however, you demonstrated no tenderness or affection and simply brutalised him.  When you were alone in the house with P, you would encourage him to be naked around you so you could see and touch his private parts.  On occasion, when P was walking around the house wearing clothes, you would pull them off him.

[16]     As  time  passed,  your  offending  against  P  became  more  aggressive  and violent.  It caused anal bleeding of such severity that P used to put toilet paper in his underwear when he went to school to stem the flow of blood.  The problems with anal bleeding continued until P was in his mid-20s when he gained the courage to go

to a doctor to have the problem addressed.  The offending had caused the lining of

P’s anal passage to be torn, meaning he bled every time he had a bowel movement.

[17]     You terrorised P and made him afraid of being at home while his mother was at work in case you should be there alone with him.  He described going to great lengths to avoid you.   After school, he would hide next door at the neighbour’s house, or under beds.  He described a hiding place on top of a high cupboard in his sister’s room where you could not see him.  He would often remain there for hours, only coming down when his mother returned home.

[18]     As with J, you tried not to cause any visible injury during your violent sexual assaults.  On an occasion when P was asked by a teacher about bruising on his body, it was attributed to playground rough and tumble.

[19]     When he was asked during the trial to describe himself growing up, P said he was a mute and terrified.  He could remember nothing positive about his childhood at all, other than going camping with J’s father on a few occasions.

[20]     The  repeated  offending  against  P ended  only  when  his  mother  and  you separated and she went to live in the Bay of Plenty.  Some time after that, however, you also moved to that region.  On one occasion in 1991, when P was about 12, you made arrangements for the youngest daughter and P to stay at your house at or near Papamoa.   I have no doubt that you did that solely to create an opportunity for further offending.   P was very reluctant to stay with you but was required by his mother to do so; he tried to escape by jumping out of the car on the way to your house.  During the evening, you told P that he would be sleeping with you in your bed.   He refused.  You dragged him into the bedroom, grabbed at his genitalia so hard he thought you were trying to rip his testicles and penis off.  You rammed your fingers into his anus and then you sodomised him brutally.   The assault was violent and prolonged, causing him extreme pain and bleeding; P says that of all of your attacks on him, this one was the worst – he said you were out of control.  He recalls that, the next morning, there was blood all over his buttocks and down his legs.

Victim impact statements

[21]     The  Court  has  received  statements  from  your  victims  describing  the devastating  effect  your  offending  has  had  on  their  lives.    I  acknowledge  their presence in Court.  They chose not to read their statements out but, consistently with the evidence they gave, their accounts make distressing reading.  By satisfying your abnormal sexual urges through the many ugly and brutal sexual encounters with them when they were very young children, you robbed J and P of a normal, happy childhood and any prospect of a healthy sexual development in adolescence.  They have described in their statements to the Court the serious emotional harm your actions have inflicted on them, and the disturbing consequences that that has had in terms of their personal relationships in adulthood and on their careers.

The elder victim, J

[22]     J,  who  is  now  42  years  old,  has  had  to  undergo  extensive  remedial counselling since he was aged 16 – he estimates having had at least 150 counselling sessions, and he says he spent several thousand dollars on counselling and medical help.  He felt ashamed and guilty about what you did to him and what you made him do to you.  He has been inhibited from being able to interact with others and develop normal adult behaviours.  He has suffered from self-like, lack of confidence and constant thoughts of suicide.   Those suicidal thoughts began when he was only

8 years old.   He can remember contemplating jumping from a moving car to kill himself and escape from the abuse he was suffering at your hands.  He says it was only after he had had a daughter, when he was aged 21, that his perspective on life was changed.

[23]     J was never taught how to have healthy relationships with girls and how to interact with people.   Your offending has had, and continues to have, a profound effect on him.   He struggles to make crucial decisions, and has difficulty dealing with stressful or complex situations.  This has affected his ability to pursue a career and get on with leading a normal life.  His lack of trust in others and his inability to be open with other people has affected his relationships.  He is not married and is currently not employed.  Your offending also put enormous strain on J’s relationship with his mother.

[24]     You destroyed J’s innocence as a child and caused him immense suffering. He often questions what he could have accomplished if he had never met you.

The younger victim, P

[25]     P is now 38 years old.  You injured him physically in your attacks and he suffered 20 years of serious disability, through constant anal bleeding, from the repeated violence of your offending.  The fear that a sexual partner would discover his continuing problems with the bleeding inhibited the development of intimate relationships.

[26]     P is  constantly  reminded  of  your  offending  and  this  prevents  him  from enjoying many everyday experiences.   You made a point of always wanting to be naked with him and would rip his clothes off him.  Now, he does not want to go to the beach because he does not want to remove his shirt.  Memories of your abuse flood back when he is required to remove his clothes in front of a partner.  He finds it difficult to be intimate with girlfriends because he becomes uncomfortable when he is hugged from behind as it brings back memories of the abuse.

[27]     P continues to struggle with the lifelong shame and embarrassment of what you did to him.   He cannot sleep in certain positions because they remind him of how you used to violate him.  He has constant nightmares about the terrible pain you caused him; he feels useless and disgusted with himself and he too has had suicidal thoughts.  P began to attend counselling in his early 30s, and he also estimates he has spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to come to terms with the self-confidence and intimacy issues he suffered.

[28]     The threats you issued to your victims when they were children, and the shame and humiliation your brutal behaviour caused them, so traumatised these men that neither of them ever spoke to the other about your offending until J told P that he had been to the Police and that you were to be prosecuted for sexually abusing him. P then told J, for the first time, that you had treated him in the same way.

[29]     It is not clear what, if anything, J and P’s mother knew about your offending. She denied knowing when she gave evidence.  But the tragic reality is that because

of your threats and the violent way in which you treated their mother as well, they were too afraid to go to her.  For all the years of your abuse they had no refuge from you, and no means of escape.  It is deeply affecting to think how those small boys must have felt all day and every day.

[30]     It took a great deal of courage and strength of character for J and P to recount their experiences to the jury, which they did in an admirably restrained manner.  It was obvious to me at the trial that their suffering is profound and that it will continue for a long time.

Personal circumstances

[31]     Mr Buchanan, you are 62 years old.   These are your first convictions for sexual offending.  You have previous convictions primarily for driving offences, the most serious of which was careless driving causing death charge in 1972 when you were 18 years old.   None of your previous offending is relevant to the sentencing today and I disregard it.

[32]     You  grew  up  in  a  normal  family  environment  and  you  describe  your upbringing as happy.  You never suffered any abuse as a child.  After leaving school, you commenced working in the family business.  You were aged 30 when you married J and P’s mother.

[33]     In June 1985, when you were 32, you sustained a serious traumatic brain injury when you crashed your car while driving drunk.  You had epileptic seizures for two years following your brain injury until you were put on medication.  Your family reports that after the accident you suffered a significant decline in cognitive function.  This resulted in your being unable to do your job and you have been permanently unemployment for the last 30 years.

[34]     From 1988 you lived alone, and you have spent most of the time isolated. Since 2006, you had a boarder living with you.  You never left the house and the boarder was paid by your investment trust to provide food for you and keep an eye on you.  He reports that you rarely left your room.

[35]     I  have  read  reports  from  a  psychiatrist  and  a  psychologist  which  were prepared to assist me in assessing your sentencing options.  Neither of the report writers considers you to be suffering from a mental disorder and they do not find that you are intellectually disabled.   The only appropriate sentence today is one of imprisonment and the specialists indicate you will have no difficulty coping with that sentence.  The information provided to me suggests that, in fact, your physical and mental condition has improved in the structured prison environment.

Pre-sentence report

[36]    The writer of your pre-sentence report says you continue to maintain your innocence; you display little insight into your offending behaviour; and you do not express much empathy for your victims.

[37]     The report identifies the main factors contributing to your offending as a need to satisfy your want for sexual gratification and your attitudes toward your offending behaviour.  The report writer assesses your likelihood of sexual reoffending as high until  you  receive  some  form  of  treatment  for  sexual  offending  in  light  of  the extended period of time in which the offending occurred and the age of your victims. The report writer also identifies that, due to your maintained innocence and lack of acceptance, you have been assessed as a high risk of harm to children until you have completed a treatment programme.

[38]     Those factors and the nature of your offending would usually indicate that a sentence of preventive detention was appropriate, but the Crown does not seek it and I agree that such a sentence is not necessary to protect the community from you.  As the  probation  officer  observed,  any  lack  of  any  relevant  prior  convictions;  the absence of any established or ongoing pattern of offending; and the length of time that has elapsed since you committed those offences indicates that the risk of harm to others is in fact relatively low.

[39]     You offended against J and P because they were available and trapped in an environment where they could not escape from you.  Those circumstances have not existed since and post-release conditions – including, if necessary, a period of extended supervision – can be imposed to ensure they do not exist in the future.

Sentencing principles

[40]     Mr Buchanan, because you are being sentenced for historic sexual offences I must not subject you to punishment more severe than that which applied at the time of your offending – the maximum relevant penalty for the sodomy and sexual violation convictions is 14 years’ imprisonment.  If committed today, this offending would be punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, and the sentence might even be longer.

[41]     The historical nature of the offending and your clean record in the intervening period mean that the most relevant sentencing principles for this case are holding you accountable for the harm caused by your offending; promoting in you a sense of responsibility for that harm; denouncing your conduct; deterring others and assisting your rehabilitation and reintegration.1

[42]     Today, the courts use a more structured approach to sentencing than at the time these offences were committed, so I adopt it but I recognise that the starting point before taking account of personal factors must be based upon the sentencing levels of the relevant time, recognising the aggravating features of the offending.2   If appropriate, the starting point would be adjusted to take account of matters which relate to you personally.

[43]     I cannot impose a minimum period of imprisonment.3

Aggravating features

[44]     I have said already that your offending, particularly against P, is among the worst of its kind.  I do not need to repeat my description of it and it is sufficient for the purpose of setting appropriate starting points to say that I accept that there are six

aggravating features as identified by Mrs Wrigley. They are:

1      Sentencing Act 2002, J 7; R v Hearling [2009] NZCA 298 at [17].

2      R v R CA244/04, 2 November 2004.

3      The offending pre-dates the commencement date for the Sentencing Act 2002 and occurred prior to the jurisdiction to impose a minimum period of imprisonment under the Criminal Justice Act

1985: Sentencing Act 2002, J 152. In Davies v R [2011] NZCA 546, [2012] 1 NZLR 364 at [60] the Court of Appeal held that the retrospective effect of J 152 is limited to offending committed after 1 September 1993.

only four years old when you started offending against him, and was six or seven years old when you began to sodomise him violently.

(b)Second, a gross abuse of trust close to the most serious possible, given that it occurred in a place which should have been a safe haven for J and P:  their home.

(c)      Third, the regular and repeated use of actual violence to force the victims to succumb to your offending.

(d)Fourth, the scale of the repetitive and regular offending over a seven and a half year period.

(e)       Fifth, the pre-meditated and manipulative nature of the offending.

(f)       Sixth,  the  serious  physical  and  emotional  harm  inflicted  on  the victims.

Starting point

[45]     For  the  Crown,  Mrs Wrigley  directed  me  to  a  number  of  sentencing authorities for comparable historic sex offending in the 1980s.4   She submitted that, based on these authorities, I should adopt a global start point in the range of 11 to

13 years’ imprisonment. Your counsel, Mr Balme, referred me to other cases,5 which

he argued require me, or at least allow me, to adopt a global start point of 10 years’

imprisonment.

4      R v Accused (CA307/92) (1992) 9 CRNZ 301 (CA); Davies v R, above n 3; R v Seiuli [2009] NZCA 315; R v Churches CA275/92, 29 March 1993; R v Leach CA454/98, 20 May 1999; Nooana v R [2011] NZCA 501; R v KJB [2007] NZCA 292; R v Smith HC Christchurch T69/01,

28 June 2002; R v Locke HC Wellington CRI 2007-091-1343, 5 September 2008.

5      R v Megchelese [2013] NZHC 251; R v G [2015] NZHC 2620; W (CA172/2013) v R [2014] NZCA 234.

[46]     Mr Buchanan, I am going to adopt a starting point in relation to your sodomy and sexual violation offending against P.  Then I am going to impose a cumulative sentence for the sodomy offending against J; that is, a sentence to be served in addition to the sentence for offending against P.  I then look to uplifts for the other offending.

[47]     At the time of your offending, the leading authority in sentencing for rape provided that for rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a start point of five years should be adopted.  That start point would need to be increased on account of aggravating features in the case,6 and for these purposes

rape may be equated with sodomy.7

[48]     For the sodomy and sexual violation against P, I adopt a start point of nine years’ imprisonment,8 taking as the lead offence the terrifying ordeal endured by him in  1991  when  he  was  12,  and  uplifting it  for  the multitude of violent  sodomy offences  when  he  was  much  younger.     This  start  point  reflects  the  serious aggravating features of the offending that I have already mentioned and acknowledges, in particular, the brutality of that offending, P’s age, and the extent of

the physical and psychological harm that he suffered.

[49]     For  the  sodomy  offending  against  J,  which  involved  a  lesser  degree  of violence and was less frequent, I adopt a start point of seven years’ imprisonment.9   I take the lead offence of that kind to be the sodomy which occurred after you choked him.

[50]     Mr  Buchanan,  taken  together  –  because  they  were,  after  all,  separate offending – that is a total start point of 16 years’ imprisonment for the sodomy and

sexual violation.   I will uplift that start point by two years to take account the

6      R v Clark [1987] 1 NZLR 380 (CA) at 383.

7      R v W (CA437/02) CA437/02, 27 May 2003 at [37].

8      The present offending is more violent and involved higher levels of premeditation than the offending in Davies v R, above n 3, where the Court of Appeal adopted a start point of 8 years’

imprisonment.

9      The offending against the first victim is broadly analogous to the offending in R v Accused (CA307/92), above n 4, in which the Court of Appeal adopted a start point of seven years’ imprisonment. This start point is also consistent with the approach taken in the Court of Appeal decisions in R v Elwin CA290/93, 10 August 1994 at 8; R v Vollmer CA408/91, 26 June 1992 and K (CA655/2014) v R [2015] NZCA 566 at [72]–[73].

you would have received for such offending today.

[51]     However, because of a need to ensure that the sentence imposed is not out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending and, particularly, the sentencing levels at the time of the offending,12 I reduce the global starting point for your offending to 14 years’ imprisonment.13   I put it at that level partly on the basis that it is just above the top of the range suggested by the Crown, although using a different

route.  In my view, your offending was more serious than the cases referred to by counsel.   I also convert the sentences to concurrent ones on the basis that the imposition of the lesser cumulative sentences would result in a series of short sentences that individually fail to reflect the seriousness of each offence.14   It is the cumulative  effect,  considering  all  of  your  offending  against  both  victims,  that justifies a starting point which equates with the maximum penalty for sodomy and sexual violation at the time of the offences.

Mitigating features

[52]     I turn now to consider whether I should discount that sentence of 14 years due to any mitigating features.  Mr Buchanan, I am not going to give you a discount

for your age.  If you serve the full term of the sentence I am about to impose on you,

10     An  uplift  of  this  size  for  similar  offending  was  adopted  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  in  K (CA655/2014) v R, above n 9, at [74] and by Woolford J in R v Megchelese, above n 5.

11     K (CA655/2014) v R, above n 9, at [74].

12     Sentencing Act 2002, J 85.

13     The Court of Appeal in R v Seiuli, above n 4, held that sexual offending that occurred between

1981 and 1989 involving repetitive, penetrative offending against multiple young victims involving a serious of abuse of trust over a long period of time can attract a total start point within the range of 12 to 14 years’ imprisonment. The serious violence involved in the present offending and the severe nature of the breach of trust require a higher global start point than the offending in R v Churches, above n 4; R v Leach, above n 4; Nooana v R, above n 4; R v KJB, above n 4; R v Smith, above n 4; R v Vollmer, above n 9; and R v Locke, above n 4. I have received less assistance from the cases on which Mr Balme relies. Those decisions primarily address offending in the late 1970s, which explains the lighter start points adopted. As the Court of Appeal in  R  v  O’R [1991] 1 NZLR 347 (CA) noted that there was a marked upward movement in sentences for offending after 1981. I do not think an overall start point of 10 years’ imprisonment appropriately marks the offending of Mr Buchanan in the light of the sentencing levels at the time.

current age of 62 years renders an appropriate sentence disproportionately severe.

Mental health

[53]     And similarly, I am not going to give you a discount for your mental health condition.   Grounds upon which a discount can be given for mental health in sentencing are where the offender’s mental health somehow reduces the offender’s culpability; that is, blameworthiness, or makes a sentence of imprisonment more onerous.  There is no evidence before the Court to indicate that your compromised mental health is responsible for your offending against the two victims.  Although you became even more violent towards P after the accident, it is significant that you were offending against both victims prior to your head injury in 1985.

[54]     I am not persuaded that the head injury can be regarded as mitigating your culpability so as to justify a reduction in the sentence.  I see no evidence to support Mr Balme’s submission that your mental health condition will make a sentence of imprisonment  more  severe.    He  talked  about  your  unusual  personality  and  that making you something of a target.  But, in fact, the health assessors’ reports tell a different story, in my view.

[55]     Ms Young in her report, notes that you have been able to interact socially with others while in prison, and that you have been seen laughing and joking with people during meals.  She writes that you have been playing table-tennis, pool, and have not been withdrawn.  She had no concerns about your ability to cope within the confines of the prison environment, with its regular fixed routines, firm structure, and a predominantly male workforce.  Dr Dean also says that you are likely to cope within  the structure of the prison  environment.    He  records  that  you  appear to respond to regular routine and firm structure.   Dr Dean sees no psychiatric reason why you should not serve a full sentence of imprisonment.

Reparation

[56]     In considering the mitigating factors that may reduce your sentence length, I must decide whether it is appropriate to impose a sentence of reparation; and you heard me discussing those matters at length with counsel this morning.

[57]     For reasons I will explain more fully in a separate judgment, I am satisfied that the Court is entitled to impose a sentence of reparation in respect of each of your victims, both J and P, to compensate them for the severe and ongoing emotional harm  caused  by  your  offending.15    I  regard  as  realistic  and  proper,  however, Mrs Wrigley’s concession that I should not make an order that compensates for consequential loss, such as loss of earnings, flowing from that emotional harm.

[58]     It is no simple task to quantify the appropriate level of reparation for the serious emotional harm J and P have suffered.  Prior to and during today’s hearing, I have  received  thoughtful  and  helpful  submissions  from  both  Mrs Wrigley  and Mr Balme on that issue. There are few cases to provide assistance as to what level of payment would be appropriate and consistent with other orders.  I have considered the cases referred to me by counsel and I have had regard to awards made in employment cases by way of compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to the feelings of employees who are unfairly dismissed.   The emotional trauma suffered by the victims in this case far exceeds that of any employment case of which I am aware.  In my view, reparation orders of $75,000 in respect of each of the victims are appropriate to recognise the sentencing purposes of holding you accountable and recognising the interests of the victims.

[59]     I am bound to consider whether making such orders would result in undue hardship for you.  I accept that at present you have no income or assets from which to make any such payment.  But you are the principal beneficiary of an investment trust which currently holds assets valued in excess of $450,000.  I am satisfied that the terms of the trust would enable the trustees, if they chose to exercise their discretion to do so, to make funds available to you to meet such an order.

[60]     The principal purpose for the sentence of reparation I intend to impose is to provide a measure of compensation for the emotional harm suffered by your victims. But since it also penalises you financially, I must take it into account in considering the totality of your sentence.   I will give you a discount for reparation which recognises that you have not volunteered to pay it, so it does not demonstrate any feelings of remorse towards your victims.  But the discount I give you ensures that you are not punished twice.  On that basis I will discount the sentence by a total of

18 months to take the reparation order into account.   You will be allowed three months to make the reparation payments.  I will entertain any reasonable application to extend the payment period if the trustees of your investment Trust decide to make the resources available to you to make the payments, but have not completed the realisation of sufficient assets within the time allowed.  If the funds to make the payments are not made available to you, and the reparations are not paid in full within the time allowed, the Crown will be given leave to apply for you to be re- sentenced on the basis that no discount will be given.

Sentence

[61]     Mr Buchanan, would you please stand.

(a)       On each of the charges of sodomy, I sentence you to 12 years and six

months’ imprisonment.

(b)On  each  of  the  charges  of  sexual  violation  by  unlawful  sexual connection, I sentence you also to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.

(c)       On each of the charges of indecent assault on a boy, I sentence you to

three years’ imprisonment.

(d)      On the charge of injuring with intent to injure, I sentence you to two

years’ imprisonment.

(e)      On the charge of aggravated assault, I sentence you to one year imprisonment.

[62]     All of these sentences are to be served concurrently, that is together, meaning that the total effective end sentence imposed is one of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.

[63]     I sentence you to pay reparation in the sums of $75,000 to each of your victims, J and P, such sums to be paid in full by 26 May 2016.  The Crown has leave to apply for you to be re-sentenced if payment is not made as directed.

[64]     Stand down.

…………………………….

Toogood J