Legal Research
Cases
R v Ellis

R v Ellis

Case [2025] NZHC 1197 14 May 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-092-9916

[2025] NZHC 1197

THE KING

v

JOHN LINDSAY ELLIS

Hearing: 14 May 2025

Appearances:

K Karpik and P Puertollano for Crown R L Thomson for defendant

Sentence:

14 May 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JOHNSTONE J

(redacted version suitable for publication)

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v ELLIS [2025] NZHC 1197 [14 May 2025]

[1] John Lindsay Ellis, I will sentence you now on two offences involving indecent behaviour, committed in late 2023.

[2] As you know, you are being sentenced in this Court because the District Court at Manukau had reason to believe a sentence of preventive detention should be considered.1 For the Crown, Ms Karpik submits that, in your case, preventive detention is available, and should be imposed. But if I was minded instead to impose a determinate sentence, it should be one of around three to three and a half years' imprisonment. Your lawyer (Ms Thomson) accepts that the statutory threshold, which must be met before this Court has jurisdiction to impose preventive detention, is met. But, Ms Thompson submits, because of the way the necessary considerations operate in this case, I should not impose preventive detention. Instead, she says I should impose a determinate sentence similar to that identified by the Crown. Ms Thomson submits that such a sentence would provide society with adequate protection.

[3] I will come back to that issue once I have worked through the things that have brought you to this point. I note that much of it is the subject of non-publication orders made in previous proceedings. For that reason, I will issue a redacted written version of these remarks, suitable for publication. In the meantime, this oral version of my remarks may not be published.

Background

[Redacted].

[4]This brings me to the offending for which you are being sentenced today.

Offending for sentence

[5] In October and November 2023, you were living in supported accommodation at a motel.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 87(3) and 90(2).

[6] One day in October, an adult motel employee went to inspect your unit. In your kitchen, you indecently assaulted him2 by approaching and hugging him with one hand, using the other to touch his back and then grasp his testicles (over clothing). He pushed you away and left. You had hugged him on previous occasions, making him feel uncomfortable.

[7] In November, a four-year-old visitor to the motel was playing with his younger sister on a grass playground. You led them to your room, giving them your cell phone to play with. You indecently assaulted the boy3 as he lay on your bed: you pulled down his pants, touched his penis, kissed his buttocks, and did what you later described as “giv[ing] him oral on his behind”. A visitor to your unit…

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 Ellis

Details

AGLC: R v Ellis [2025] NZHC 1197
Case: [2025] NZHC 1197
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ellis involves John Lindsay Ellis, who was sentenced for two offences of indecent behaviour committed in late 2023. The High Court of New Zealand at the Auckland Registry was tasked with determining whether Ellis should be subject to preventive detention or a determinate sentence. The Crown argued for preventive detention, while Ellis's defence counsel argued for a determinate sentence, considering Ellis's guilty pleas and personal circumstances.

The legal issues centred around whether the statutory threshold for preventive detention was met and, if so, whether a lengthy determinate sentence would provide adequate protection for society. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the risk of reoffending, and whether any efforts had been made to address the causes of the offending.

Johnstone J, after considering the reports from forensic experts, concluded that while the threshold for preventive detention was met, the substantial prospect of an extended supervision order (ESO) at the time of Ellis's release, coupled with his diminishing physical capacities, meant adequate protection for society would be available. The court determined that a determinate sentence of three years and nine months was appropriate, with a minimum period of two years and six months to be served. This decision balanced the need for community protection with the personal circumstances of the offender.

The final orders of the court were that Ellis was to serve three years and nine months' imprisonment for each offence, with a minimum period of two years and six months.

Orders