R v F - [2018] NZHC 1313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2017-063-836

[2018] NZHC 1313

THE QUEEN

v

F

Hearing: 6 June 2018

Appearances:

C H Macklin for the Crown

M J Hine and R W S Rose for the Offender

Judgment:

6 June 2018

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Hine Jack Eagle, Tauranga

R v F [2018] NZHC 1313 [6 June 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 27 April 2018, Mr F, now aged 44, was found guilty and convicted at trial of 36 charges of sexual offending against his own daughter. He was convicted of:

(a)14 specific and three representative offences of sexual violation by rape, each carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)seven specific and six representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, each carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment;2

(c)one specific offence of indecent assault on a child, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment;3

(d)one specific offence of assault with intent to commit sexual violation, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment;4

(e)two specific offences of indecent assault, each carrying a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment;5 and

(f)one specific and one representative charge of male assaults female, each carrying a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.6

Approach to sentencing

[2] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. In this case, I have particular regard to the purposes of:

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 133(1)(a) (since repealed).
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 129(2).
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 125.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b).

(a)holding Mr F accountable for the harm done to his victim and the community;

(b)promoting in him a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of that harm;

(c)providing for the interests of the victim;

(d)denouncing his conduct and, if possible, deterring others from committing similar offences; and

(e)protecting the community from him.

[3] I am also required to, and do, take into account the principles of sentencing, particularly:

(a)the need to recognise the gravity and relative seriousness of the offending and the degree of Mr F’s culpability;

(b)the requirement on me to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence, or a penalty near the maximum, if the offending is within or near the most serious of cases unless Mr F’s circumstances make that inappropriate;

(c)the general desirability of consistency in dealing with similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances;

(d)the effect of the offending on the victim and the community; and

(e)the requirement to impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

What happened?

General overview

[4] Mr F started offending when the victim was 10 or 11 years old. He did not stop physically, psychologically and sexually abusing her until she ran away from her family and went…

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 F

Details

AGLC: R v F [2018] NZHC 1313
Case: [2018] NZHC 1313
Decision Date: 6 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v F involved the defendant, Mr. F, who was convicted of multiple charges of sexual offending against his daughter, spanning over 15 years. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the nature and extent of the abuse, the vulnerability of the victim, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The legal issues centred around setting an appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account aggravating factors such as breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability, the scale and duration of the offending, and the associated violence. The court also had to determine any adjustments to the starting point based on Mr. F's personal circumstances and whether a minimum period of imprisonment was warranted.

In its reasoning, the court established a starting point of 19 and a half years' imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the crimes committed by Mr. F. The court found that the abuse of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, the scale and duration of the offending, and the harm caused to the victim were all significant aggravating factors. Despite Mr. F's denial of the charges and lack of remorse, the court decided not to make any adjustments to the starting point. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent, or nine years and nine months, on the convictions for rape, to ensure accountability and protection of the community.

The final sentence imposed on Mr. F was 19 years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and nine months. The sentences for each offence were to run concurrently, and Mr. F was also required to be entered on the Child Sex Offender Register upon his release. The victim's name and other identifying details were suppressed to protect her identity.

Orders