R v Dennis - [2013] NZHC 536

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-070-2407 [2013] NZHC 536

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL PATRICK DENNIS

Hearing: 19 March 2013 (Heard at Rotorua)

Counsel: J J Rhodes for the Crown
A C Balme for Mr Dennis

Judgment: 19 March 2013

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr J J Rhodes, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Mr A C Balme, Barrister, Tauranga

R V DENNIS HC TAU CRI-2012-070-2407 [19 March 2013]

[1] Mr Dennis, you may remain seated until I come to impose the formal sentence.

[2] I want to make clear to you at the outset that there will not be a sentence of preventive detention. I have said that, in part, because I do not think that should simply be hanging over you until I finish what I am about to say. But having said that, I do ask that you pay attention to what is being said because this is a case which has troubled me and you certainly have been very close to a sentence of preventive detention. I am not sure whether you are fully aware of what is involved with such a sentence, but it is effectively a sentence which is binding on you for the rest of your life and you can be recalled to prison pursuant to that sentence. I may very well repeat myself at the end. But if there is any further offending of this nature you really do face a serious likelihood of a sentence of preventive detention.

[3] A critical thing here – and I will come back to this – is the real need for you to get intensive treatment of the sort that is available. That has to be provided to you. But equally vital is that you fully participate in it. You do not go into it with fixed notions about yourself; you have got to fully engage in it.

[4] You appear for sentence for three sexual offences against a six year old girl. There is one offence of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. This has a maximum finite, or determinate, sentence of 20 years imprisonment. That says a lot by itself, doesn’t it Mr Dennis? And you are acknowledging to me that you do appreciate this. This is serious offending. There are two offences of indecent assault on a child under 12, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for those two other offences. You pleaded guilty to the charges.

The facts

[5] An outline of the facts is as follows. The complainant is the daughter of a woman with whom you had had a relationship in the 1980s. The relationship was resumed towards the beginning of 2012. You visited the complainant’s mother over a period of five days in May 2012. Over that period the offences were committed.

You violated this young…

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 Dennis

Details

AGLC: R v Dennis [2013] NZHC 536
Case: [2013] NZHC 536
Decision Date: 19 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the defendant, Michael Patrick Dennis, was sentenced for three sexual offences against a six-year-old girl. The offences included sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and two counts of indecent assault on a child under 12. Dennis pleaded guilty to all charges. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offences and the need for protection of society.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate sentence for Dennis, weighing the factors for and against a determinate sentence versus preventive detention. The court considered Dennis's previous convictions in Australia, his potential risk to the community, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Dennis's willingness to participate in intensive treatment programs was a crucial factor.

The court decided to impose a determinate sentence of 5 years and 2 months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 4 years. The court rejected the Crown's submission for preventive detention, noting Dennis's willingness to engage in intensive treatment and the potential for an extended supervision order upon release. The court emphasised the importance of Dennis's full participation in treatment to mitigate his risk of reoffending.

The final orders included a sentence of 5 years and 2 months imprisonment for the lead offence, with a minimum non-parole period of 4 years. The court also required that an extended supervision order be sought upon Dennis's release. Dennis was warned that any further offences of a similar nature would likely result in preventive detention.

Orders