R v DC - [2016] NZHC 1984

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1985 AND S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-006715

CRI-2015-092-006508 [2016] NZHC 1984

THE QUEEN

v

DC AND ST

Hearing: 24 August 2016

Appearances:

N Walker and SBT Belk for the Crown M Goodwin and G Ghahraman for DC M Allen and G H Vear for ST

Sentencing:

24 August 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Manukau
Public Defence Service, Manukau

Counsel: M Goodwin, Auckland

R v DC AND ST [2016] NZHC 1984 [24 August 2016]

[1] There are orders that the names and identifying particulars of the victims and the names of the three defendants cannot be published. However, so that you can more easily follow what I am saying I will use the full names. The names in the transcript of what I am saying will be made anonymous.

[2] DC and ST: as you know you appear for sentence for sexual offences against C and J. C and J are the younger sisters of you S and the younger cousins of you DC.

[3] I will describe the offences simply in outline.

Offences: DC – C
[4] DC, your offences against C occurred when she was aged between five and nine years. You were aged over that period between 15 and 19 years.

[5] The most serious offence was rape when C was aged approximately seven to eight years old. There was a second offence of assault with intent to rape. This was your last offence against her when she was aged eight or nine years old. You tried to get her pants off with the intention of raping her.

[6] There was one offence of indecent assault when she was aged about five years old. You dragged her under a bed and rubbed your penis against her, over her clothing and it appears with your clothing on. There were two further offences of indecent assault when you touched her genitalia and again over her clothing.

DC – J

[7] There were two offences against J which occurred in the same incident. The jury found that you raped her then turned her over and sexually violated her anus with your penis. She was around six years old. You would have been aged between
20 and 21 years.

[8] ST - you are to be sentenced for three offences against your sister C which occurred in a single incident. There were two offences of unlawful sexual connection by putting your mouth on her genitalia and by forcing your penis into her mouth. There also was an indecent assault by kissing her on the face and mouth. C was aged seven or eight years old at the time.…

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 DC

Details

AGLC: R v DC [2016] NZHC 1984
Case: [2016] NZHC 1984
Decision Date: 24 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v DC and ST involved two defendants, DC and ST, who were sentenced for sexual offences against their younger relatives, C and J. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate starting points for the sentences based on the severity of the offences, and the extent to which these starting points should be adjusted considering personal factors of the defendants. The court also had to determine the final sentences, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court began by outlining the nature and seriousness of the offences, which included multiple instances of rape and indecent assault against the victims, who were minors at the time of the offences. The court identified several aggravating factors, such as the vulnerability of the victims and the breach of trust, but also considered mitigating factors including the defendants' relative youth at the time of the offences and their current family responsibilities. After reviewing the submissions and relevant case law, the court concluded that the starting point for both defendants should be around 10 years of imprisonment, reduced by 30% for DC and 35% for ST based on personal mitigating factors. The final sentences imposed were six years and six months for DC and six years and six months for ST, to be served concurrently.

The reasoning of the court focused on balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, particularly considering the defendants' current family roles and lack of previous convictions. The court ultimately determined that while the offences were severe, the defendants' personal circumstances warranted a significant reduction in their sentences.

Orders