R v Ecclestone - [2015] NZHC 2054

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-006-1025 [2015] NZHC 2054

THE QUEEN

v

JASON BRENT ECCLESTONE

Charges:
Plea:

Sexual violation by rape;

Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (4); Abduction for sex; Threatening to kill

Not Guilty

Counsel:

J M Webber for Crown
R A Harrison for Prisoner

Sentenced:

28 August 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: O’Donoghue Webber (Nelson) for Crown
Rob Harrison (Blenheim) for Prisoner

R v ECCLESTONE [2015] NZHC 2054 [28 August 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Ecclestone, you were convicted by a jury of seven offences committed against the complainant. Five of the charges are sexual violation by rape and other means, each of which has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. The other two charges are abduction for sex (14 years’ imprisonment) and threatening to kill (seven years’ imprisonment). The reason you are for sentence in this Court is that the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention.

The facts

[2] Your victim was a sex worker who met you at a motel where you paid her for one hour of sex. Consensual sex took place within that period of time. However, you had not ejaculated and asked for more time, which your victim agreed to. After around 15 minutes of extra time your victim tried to end the session and have you leave. You refused.

[3] After that, on the evidence, you became increasingly brutal and degrading towards your victim. Over the next three hours or so you subjected her to a variety of sexual violations. There is one charge for each of the different types of sexual violation, but your victim’s evidence was that you repeatedly violated her in each of the different ways, moving between them over the lengthy period of offending.

[4] Your victim was so traumatised by what you were doing that she became nauseous and went to the toilet to vomit. While she was vomiting you attempted to continue to penetrate her from behind.

[5] I accept the Crown’s submission that features of your attack on the victim

included, in broad terms:

· You penetrated her with your penis, alternating between her anus and vagina.

· You did it “harder and harder and harder”.

·You penetrated her vagina with your fingers and attempted to penetrate her with your hand.

· You smothered her with a pillow to the point where she could not breathe.

· You threatened to kill her if she called the Police.

· You said you wanted to ejaculate on the victim’s face.

·You forced your victim to perform oral sex after you had penetrated her anally.

· You told your victim to keep her mouth shut when she complained.

·You were hurting your victim, she told you to stop because of this, but you did not.

Victim impact statement

[6] Your victim was a 52 year old sex worker. In…

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 Ecclestone

Details

AGLC: R v Ecclestone [2015] NZHC 2054
Case: [2015] NZHC 2054
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand sentenced Jason Brent Ecclestone on eight charges: five of sexual violation by rape and other means, one of abduction for sex, and two of threatening to kill. Ecclestone was found not guilty by a jury. The court considered the severity of the offences, which involved prolonged and brutal sexual abuse of a sex worker over three hours. The court also evaluated Ecclestone’s extensive criminal history, including a previous conviction for similar offences in 1998. The sentencing judge, Brewer J, determined that Ecclestone posed a significant risk to the community and was not amenable to rehabilitation. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of eight years and six months for the sexual violation charges, and four years for the abduction and threatening to kill charges. The sentences were to run concurrently.

Brewer J began by evaluating the appropriate finite sentence, considering the gravity of the offences and Ecclestone’s personal circumstances. The court acknowledged the violence, duration, and severity of the sexual abuse, as well as Ecclestone’s previous convictions for similar offences. The judge ultimately determined that a finite sentence of thirteen years would be appropriate but found that preventive detention was necessary to protect the community. The judge considered Ecclestone’s history of sexual offending, lack of remorse, and the assessments of clinical psychologists indicating a high risk of future sexual violence. The court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of eight years and six months for the sexual violation charges and four years for the other charges, all to be served concurrently.

Orders