R v Demetriades - [2013] NZHC 964

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI 2011-076-1970 [2013] NZHC 964

REGINA

v

JADEN KARL DEMETRIADES JAMIE ALAN SULLIVAN SLADE JOHN EVERETT

(Heard at Christchurch) Counsel: A R and A M McRae for Crown
A S Greig for Mr Sullivan
T W Fournier for Mr Everett and Mr Demetriades

Judgment: 3 May 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

[1] Jaden Demetriades, Jamie Sullivan and Slade Everett this is an awkward sentencing from my perspective. You three were tried but acquitted of rape. However, the jury found you guilty of having sexual intercourse with a young woman, a girl really under 16 years of age. The fact of you having intercourse with her was not in dispute, nor was her age. You therefore faced a reverse onus to
establish the only defence available to this charge and you failed to do so.

R V DEMETRIADES SULLIVAN AND EVERETT HC TIM CRI 2011-076-1970 [3 May 2013]

[2] For reasons which will become apparent this gives rise to a situation in which there are real difficulties for me in determining the factual basis upon which you should be sentenced. I have also heard conflicting submissions from your counsel on the one hand, and Crown counsel on the other, as to the appropriate approach.

[3] The Crown case was advanced effectively through the complainant alone. The girl, aged 15 years and 5 months at the relevant time, knew all three of you and indeed she had been your girlfriend, Mr Sullivan. That was an intimate relationship, but one which ended some weeks before the relevant night of 16 October 2011.

[4] That night the complainant, to her discredit, left home against her parents’ wishes. She got a lift into town. Once there she began drinking and in the early hours of the morning she went to the Sullivan home where there was a birthday party underway for Mr Sullivan senior. Later still, the complainant travelled by taxi to High Street. She maintains that she was taken to the clubrooms of the Road Knights gang. It has never been suggested that you were members of that group, but you were occasional visitors to the clubrooms. The complainant said that she drank some more there, smoked some cannabis after which she felt “fuzzy”. Her ability to walk unassisted was affected.

[5] She then described being taken to a house, number 44, a few doors away, this being the home of Mr Everett senior. At this stage, in the early hours of the morning she said there was initially another female present and that this young girl was propositioned, verbally abused and then left the address. Attention then turned to the complainant. On her account there were five men present, you three, another young man named she thinks ‘Jessie’, who had come from the clubrooms, and an older man aged about 40, also from…

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 Demetriades

Details

AGLC: R v Demetriades [2013] NZHC 964
Case: [2013] NZHC 964
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v. Jaden Karl Demetriades, Jamie Alan Sullivan, and Slade John Everett (referred to as the respondents) dealt with charges of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years of age. The respondents were acquitted of rape but found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse. The central legal issue was determining the appropriate sentence for the respondents, considering the statutory defence of reasonable steps taken to ascertain age and belief in consent, which the jury rejected.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, noting the complainant's credibility was compromised, leading to the acquittal on rape charges. The court also considered the statutory defence, which required the respondents to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they took reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and believed she was at least 16 years old and consented to the sexual acts. The respondents failed to establish this defence, leading to their conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse.

The court deliberated on the appropriate sentencing approach, considering the aggravating feature of non-consensual intercourse. The court concluded that non-consensual intercourse must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing purposes. However, the court found that the Crown had not proven non-consensual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt. Despite this, the court viewed the case as serious due to the vulnerability of the complainant, who was significantly affected by alcohol and drugs.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the respondents to five months of community detention, a curfew, and 160 hours of community work. The court also warned the respondents about the implications of the three strikes legislation, which could lead to more severe penalties for future prescribed offences.

The final orders included a five-month community detention sentence, a curfew, 160 hours of community work, and a warning about the three strikes legislation.

Orders