R v Burrett - [2016] NZHC 644

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-002748 [2016] NZHC 644

THE QUEEN

v

ROBERT SELWYN BURRETT

Hearing: 12 April 2016

Appearances:

D L Elsmore for the Crown
R G Glover for the Defendant

Judgment:

12 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF NATION J

[1] There are some preliminary matters I need to deal with. At the request of Mr Burrett, on 16 February 2016 I gave an indication as to the sentence which would be imposed if guilty pleas were entered to certain charges. Mr Burrett pleaded guilty on the basis of that indication on 18 February 2016. The summary of facts relating to the relevant charges was read out in Court at that time.

[2] Since then, I have dealt with various applications to film or record the sentencing and also for suppression of the names of schools and a bus company
connected to the proceedings and Mr Burrett. For reasons I have given in judgments

R v BURRETT [2016] NZHC 644 [12 April 2016]

released recently, I have suppressed the names of the schools and the bus company and any information that might lead to their identification.

[3] The names of the victims are, by statute, suppressed. The summary of facts referred to certain victims by an initial. To avoid potential identification of any victim, I make an order now that there is to be no reference to an initial associated with a particular victim’s name in any publication relating to these proceedings.

[4] As well as listening to the victim impact report read in Court, I have re-read the victim impact statements that were presented to the Court before I gave the sentence indication.

[5] I acknowledge the courage it has taken for all parents to revisit how they came to learn of this offending and the devastating effect this had on them. Mr Burrett, you have read the reports. All these parents had particular demands and stresses in caring for their children. One family was dealing with the most tragic of circumstances. You knew about those circumstances but it did not deter you from your offending with their daughter.

[6] I also acknowledge the care which parents took not to communicate with their children in a way that could potentially prejudice the Police investigation and how difficult this must have been for the parents. As one parent has said, “as parents, what we wanted to do was talk to her and comfort her, but we couldn’t”.

[7] I also acknowledge the way in which parents have chosen to reduce the ongoing effects of the offending by restricting, as best they can, the people who know about what happened to their children so as to avoid the continued victimisation of their children. I recognise how one parent was able to tell me how her daughter was involved in certain concerning behaviour when the offending…

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 Burrett

Details

AGLC: R v Burrett [2016] NZHC 644
Case: [2016] NZHC 644
Decision Date: 12 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Selwyn Burrett was convicted of multiple counts of sexual violation involving children, including charges of rape, indecent assault, and possession of objectionable publications. The victims were children aged between five and twelve years old, with some being particularly vulnerable due to disabilities. The court heard victim impact statements detailing the severe and lasting harm caused to the victims and their families. The court considered the aggravating factors of the case, including the premeditation, vulnerability of the victims, and the breach of trust involved. The court also considered the purposes of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.

The court imposed a total sentence of 19 and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum term of ten years before parole eligibility. This sentence was determined to be appropriate for the gravity of the offences, taking into account the totality of the offending, the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, and the need to protect the community. The court also ordered the destruction of all electronic items, videos, images, and vibrators seized from the defendant.

The case highlights the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions and providing support to the victims and their families. The court's decision demonstrates the severity of sexual offences against children and the need for appropriate sentencing to ensure public protection.

Orders