R v Chadwick - [2021] NZHC 3038

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT(S)/ PERSON(S) UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2020-042-001836

[2021] NZHC 3038

THE QUEEN

v

JEFFREY FRANK CHADWICK

Hearing: 12 October 2021

Appearances:

J Webber for the Crown

J Sandston for the Defendant

Sentence:

12 October 2021

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Chadwick, you appear for sentencing today on one charge of sexual violation by rape.1 The offending occurred in 2014 and the victim was an eight-year-old girl who was in your overnight care. You pleaded guilty, but only a few weeks before the trial.

1 This decision was delivered orally on 12 October 2021. The written version has been edited for grammar, flow, and footnotes, but the substance remains unchanged.

R v CHADWICK [2021] NZHC 3038 [12 October 2021]

[2] I will approach the sentencing by first setting out the factual background of this offending. I will then outline the purposes and principles of sentencing.

[3] Sentencing has two stages. First, based on other cases with similar facts, I must set a starting point, and in this case, consider the previous offending for which you are serving imprisonment at present. Secondly, I consider any personal mitigating or aggravating factors in your case, which would warrant any discount or uplift to the sentence.

[4] In a final step I consider the issue of totality of the sentence. You are currently serving a sentence of imprisonment. In this case I must take that into account and determine whether any sentence I impose on you today is to be served at the same time (to which I shall refer as “concurrently”) or added onto the sentence that you are serving (to which I shall refer as “cumulatively”). If it is the latter, I must then consider whether there should be a further discount, to ensure your overall sentence is not wholly out of proportion to the overall offending for which you are sentenced.

Background

Factual background

[5] Within a few days of moving into a multi-storey apartment block, you met and developed a friendship with the victim’s mother. You visited their address and, on occasions, you would meet with the victim at your room in the apartment block.

[6] Between 8 May 2014 and 13 September, the victim stayed overnight in your room. She slept in your single bed and you slept on a mattress on the floor. During the night, you got up, unzipped the victim’s pants and took them off. You then put your penis into her vagina. You ejaculated inside the complainant.

[7] The following morning, the victim’s vagina was “stinging” inside. She had to check after showering if her genitalia had been infected. You denied the allegation when spoken to by the…

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 Chadwick

Details

AGLC: R v Chadwick [2021] NZHC 3038
Case: [2021] NZHC 3038
Decision Date: 12 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chadwick involved the defendant, Jeffrey Frank Chadwick, being sentenced for the charge of sexual violation by rape. The victim, an eight-year-old girl, was in Chadwick's care when the offence occurred between May 8 and September 13, 2014. Chadwick had pleaded guilty to the charge shortly before the trial. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing, as well as personal mitigating and aggravating factors.

The legal issues the court had to address were the starting point for the sentence, which was based on similar cases, and any personal factors that might warrant a discount or uplift in the sentence. The court considered the aggravating factors such as the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the harm caused, as well as the mitigating factor of Chadwick's guilty plea. The court also had to decide whether the sentence for the present offence should be served concurrently or cumulatively with the defendant's current sentence for related child sexual exploitation material offences.

The court decided on a starting point of nine and a half years' imprisonment based on similar cases. The court also took into account the personal factors, such as the defendant's high risk of re-offending and his participation in a treatment program. The court granted a 15% discount for the guilty plea but did not consider special recognition of remorse. The court then adjusted the sentence for totality, taking into account the defendant's current sentence for related offences, and decided on a cumulative sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. Given that the defendant had already served three years of his current sentence, the effective sentence from that day forward was nine years' imprisonment.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Jeffrey Frank Chadwick, was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment as a cumulative sentence for the convictions for which he was currently serving, and the present sentence. The defendant would serve nine years' imprisonment from that day forward, taking into account the three years already served.

Orders