R v Evans - [2018] NZHC 69

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-090-2281

[2018] NZHC 69

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES GEORGE EVANS

Charges:
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection with a female under 12 years (2);
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection with a female aged 12-16 years (4);

Indecent assault of female under 12 years (2); Indecent assault of boy under 12 years

Sentenced:

8 February 2018

Counsel:

H D L Steele for Crown S Fernando for Prisoner

Plea:

Guilty

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Public Defence Service (Waitakere) for Prisoner

R v EVANS [2018] NZHC 69 [8 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Evans, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection with a female under 12, and four charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection with a female aged 12-16 years. The maximum penalty for each of these charges is 20 years’ imprisonment. I note that two of the charges are representative. You have also pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault of a female under 12 years and one charge of indecent assault of a boy who was under 12 years. Two of the charges are representative charges. Each of these charges has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

[2]Together, the charges relate to offending by you against four children.

Background

[3] Your principal victim was MD. You are related to her through the family of her stepfather. She referred to you as “Uncle Jimmy”. MD’s mother suffers from a chronic illness and you helped her cope with this, visiting the home and occasionally taking MD out by yourself.

[4] Between 7 May 2016 and 7 May 2017, MD was 11 or 12 years old. On several occasions you took her into your bedroom at your home address where you licked and rubbed her vagina.

[5] On 7 May 2017, in your bedroom, you pulled down your track pants and exposed your penis to her. You yelled repeatedly “I want a fuck”. You pushed MD onto the bed and would not let her up. You pulled down her pants and began rubbing her vagina with your finger. You then licked her vagina for a period estimated to be between five and 15 minutes, masturbating as you did so. When you finished, you handed MD a tea towel and told her to use it to wipe her vagina. You then drove MD home. During the journey, you told her that you had done that to other girls, some of whom she knew. You told her not to tell her mother and gave her $76 for dinner.

[6] Previously, between 3 January 2007 and 3 January 2009, you indecently assaulted MD’s brother, J. J was aged between six and eight years. The offending took place at…

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 Evans

Details

AGLC: R v Evans [2018] NZHC 69
Case: [2018] NZHC 69
Decision Date: 8 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v James George Evans, the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual violation and indecent assault involving four children. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Evans, considering both a finite sentence and the possibility of preventive detention. The legal issues centered around the appropriate punishment for Evans's repeated and severe sexual offenses against children, and whether preventive detention was warranted to protect the community.

The court identified several aggravating factors in Evans's offending, including planning and premeditation, the vulnerability of the victims, the harm caused, the scale of the offending, and the breach of trust. Despite Evans's previous attempts at rehabilitation, the court found his prospects for meaningful rehabilitation to be bleak. The health assessors' reports indicated that Evans posed a high risk of reoffending, and his behavior suggested a lack of remorse and an acceptance of his proclivity for offending. The court concluded that a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community, leading to the decision for preventive detention. Evans was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, ensuring ongoing protection for the community while allowing for potential release if he demonstrates genuine rehabilitation.

The final orders included the mandatory registration of Evans under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 due to his qualifying offenses. This registration is intended to enhance community safety by monitoring and managing high-risk offenders.

Orders