R v Connor - [2021] NZHC 2285

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS AS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2020-054-001488

[2021] NZHC 2285

THE QUEEN

V

TABAK DANZELLE CONNOR

Sentencing: 1 September 2021

Appearances:

B D Vandervolk, J J Harvey for the Crown F D Steedman for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 September 2021

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Connor you appear for sentencing today having yet again committed serious sexual offending against a child. As you will know the fact that this further offending follows from earlier offending of a similar kind means that the Court will now need to consider the most drastic sentence that exists for repeated offending of this kind, being the sentence of preventive detention. The Crown seeks that you be subject to that sentence.

[2] In order to determine whether such a sentence is appropriate it is first necessary to assess what the sentence should be for this most recent offending. Having done so I will then to go on to address whether this further reoffending, in light of your

R v CONNOR [2021] NZHC 2285 [1 September 2021]

previous history and the assessments that have been made about you, should lead to the sentence of preventive detention.

The facts

[3] You have pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual conduct with a child under 121 and three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.2 The facts of your offending are set out in the Crown’s summary of facts which you have accepted by the entry of your guilty pleas.

[4] In 2018 you befriended the complainant’s stepfather and mother, and regularly visited them in Feilding. When you so visited you provided the complainant with food and gifts. She was then six years old. She was eight when you last offended against her.

[5] You were at that time employed as a long-haul truck driver regularly travelling the route between Auckland and Wellington. Shortly after you met up with the complainant and her mother you offered to take the complainant for rides in your truck. She then accompanied you on a number of occasions on trips between Feilding and Wellington.

[6] In December 2018 you then moved into a flat in Feilding where the complainant, her mother and stepfather and the complainant’s sister lived.

[7] During the period when you came to know the complainant you sexually offended against her. This gives rise to the two representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. You used your mouth on her genitalia and you digitally penetrated her genitalia with your fingers.

[8] You lived with the complainant’s family for around one month. During this time you put the complainant in your bed on two occasions. This gives rise to the third representative charge of sexual contact with a child under 12.

1 Crimes Act…

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 Connor

Details

AGLC: R v Connor [2021] NZHC 2285
Case: [2021] NZHC 2285
Decision Date: 1 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Connor involved sentencing for the defendant, Tabak Danzelle Connor, who had pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12 and three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's extensive history of similar sexual offences against children and adolescents. The Crown argued for preventive detention, the most severe penalty available for repeated sexual offences against children.

The court first assessed the appropriate sentence for the recent offending, considering factors such as planning and premeditation, the vulnerability of the victim, the harm caused, and the breach of trust. The court found that the appropriate starting point for imprisonment was five years and six months. Given the defendant's history of nine previous convictions for serious sexual offences against children, the court uplifted the sentence by 18 months to a total of seven years. The court then applied a discount for the defendant's guilty plea, reducing the sentence to five years and three months.

The court further determined that a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary to protect the community, setting it at three and a half years. The key issue was whether preventive detention was warranted. The court found that the defendant's history of serious sexual offending, the harm caused, and the high risk of reoffending justified this sentence. Reports from health professionals indicated a high likelihood of reoffending, noting the defendant's failure to address the causes of his offending and his lack of genuine remorse. The court concluded that a lengthy determinative sentence was insufficient to protect the community and imposed preventive detention with a minimum imprisonment period of five years.

Orders