R v Cave - [2022] NZHC 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-341

[2022] NZHC 1999

THE QUEEN

v

LEONARD CAVE

Hearing: 12 August 2022

Appearances:

J V Barry and I L M Archibald for Crown W C Pyke for Defendant

Sentence:

12 August 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: W C Pyke, Auckland

R v CAVE [2022] NZHC 1999 [12 August 2022]

[1] Mr Cave, you are for sentence on 11 charges of historic offending. You were found guilty of these charges following a jury trial in May 2022 at which I presided.

[2]There are essentially two sets of charges.

[3] The first set comprises seven charges, all in respect of sexual offending against four boys, or at least they were boys then, who at the time were pupils at Dilworth School (“Dilworth”). I shall refer to this offending as “the Dilworth offending”.

[4] The second set were all committed against a fifth boy, attending a school in Waikato. This second set comprises two charges of sexual offending, and two drugs charges — supplying him with cannabis, and supplying him with LSD. I shall refer to this offending as the “Waikato offending”.

Facts

[5] To recap on the facts, the Dilworth charges arise out of a Police investigation into allegations of historic sexual abuse committed at Dilworth.

[6] By definition, a boy who attended Dilworth came from a disadvantaged background and the complainants or victims who gave evidence before me were from solo parent homes, often because their mother or father had died when they were very young. Getting into Dilworth was no mean feat and, as Mr Barry said at the start of the trial, a parent who got their son into Dilworth thought they had “struck the jackpot”.

[7] You committed the first two of the Dilworth offences against C. This was in the very early 1970s. C was in your orbit because he was in the school choir for which you were then playing the organ. You would have been in your mid-20s, and he would have been about 15. C’s evidence was that he ended up alone with you one afternoon after choir practice, possibly returning the hymn books to their allotted shelves, when you cornered him — literally. You then touched his crotch, over his clothing, and grabbed his hand to have him do likewise to you. C fled. As I have said, this offending is captured by the first two charges, both of indecent assault.

[8] You then left Dilworth for a period but returned between 1975 and 1985, when you were employed as the head of music and the choirmaster. You committed the next five offences between 1981 and 1985, against three boys, each of whom was in the choir, or who you took for music lessons or for music as a subject, or all of the above.

[9] The first three of these five charges were committed against…

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 Cave

Details

AGLC: R v Cave [2022] NZHC 1999
Case: [2022] NZHC 1999
Decision Date: 12 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Leonard Cave was sentenced on 11 charges of historic sexual offending. The charges involved sexual abuse against five boys, four of whom were students at Dilworth School and one at a school in Waikato. Cave, a former teacher and choirmaster, was found guilty of multiple counts of indecent assault, sexual violation, and drug supply. The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the premeditated nature of Cave's actions.

The court identified two primary sets of charges: the Dilworth offending, which involved seven charges of sexual abuse against four boys at Dilworth School, and the Waikato offending, which included two charges of sexual abuse and two drug supply charges against a boy from Waikato. The Dilworth charges occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, while the Waikato charges took place between 2004 and 2007. Cave's modus operandi involved grooming the boys, plying them with alcohol, and exploiting their vulnerable situations.

Peters J established a starting point for sentencing by considering the culpability of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for accountability, denunciation, and deterrence. The court determined a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, acknowledging the severity of the abuse and the prolonged exploitation in the Waikato charges. The court also considered mitigating factors, such as Cave's contributions to the community and his age, which led to a reduction of one year. The final sentence imposed was eight years' imprisonment, with specific charges carrying additional penalties, including placement on the Child Sex Offender Register for certain offences.

This case underscores the court's commitment to addressing historical sexual abuse, holding offenders accountable, and considering the long-term impact on victims. The sentence reflects the gravity of Cave's actions and aims to provide justice for the victims while considering personal mitigating factors.

Orders