R v G

Case [2021] NZHC 3527 17 December 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT

PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

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

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANTS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-096-2253

[2021] NZHC 3527

THE QUEEN

v

G

Sentencing Hearing: 15 December 2021

Counsel:

S Bishop and A Prestidge for the Crown P V Paino for Mr G

Sentencing Notes:

17 December 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

R v G [2021] NZHC 3527 [17 December 2021]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

The offending [4]

GG  [6]
GT  [9]
KF  [10]
DG  [11]
PD  [15]
SK  [19]
MM  [28]

Victim impact statements [30]

Personal circumstances [31]

Purposes and principles of sentencing [38]

Sentencing options [40]

Determinate sentences [41]

Starting point [42]

Relevant aggravating factors [46]

Discussion [58]

Personal aggravating and mitigating factors [62]

Guilty plea [63]

Personal mitigating factors [65]

Youth [66]

Prior offending [69]

Conclusion in relation to determinate sentence [74] Minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) [75] Preventive detention [81]

Is there a pattern of serious offending? [102]

What is the seriousness of the harm? [103] Do you have a tendency to commit serious offences in the future? [104] Is there an absence of efforts to rehabilitate? [105]

A lengthy determinate sentence is preferable [106]

Three strikes regime [117]

Sex Offender Register [120]

Non-publication order [121]

Sentence [123]

Introduction

[1]Mr G, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a)Seven charges (two representative) of unlawful sexual connection with a female under 12;1

(b)Two charges of sexual violation by rape of a female under 12;2

(c)Eleven charges of indecently assaulting a female under 12;3

(d)Two charges of incest;4

(e)One charge of doing an indecent act with a boy under 16;5 and

(f)Three charges of indecently assaulting a female aged 12–16.6

[2] You appear today for sentence on the 26 charges to which you have pleaded guilty.7

[3] The Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. Your lawyer, Mr Paino, argues that, instead, I should impose a finite, or what is called a determinate, sentence. As is usual in cases of this kind, I shall approach the sentencing in two stages:

(a)first, I shall fix a determinate sentence and set any minimum period of imprisonment (MPI); and

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(b): maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
2      Section 128(1)(a): maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3): maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 130: maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 140(b): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. This is a repealed provision in force during the time of offending.
6…

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 G

Details

AGLC: R v G [2021] NZHC 3527
Case: [2021] NZHC 3527
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr G pleaded guilty to 26 charges of serious sexual offending against children, including incest, rape, and indecent assault. The Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention, while Mr G's counsel argued for a determinate sentence. The court first determined a determinate sentence starting point of 18 years' imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the number of victims. The starting point was reduced by 35% due to mitigating factors, resulting in a determinate sentence of 11 years and 8 months' imprisonment. However, the court found that an 8-year minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was necessary to adequately punish, deter, and denounce the offending. The court then considered whether to impose preventive detention to protect the community from the risk of Mr G reoffending. Health assessors' reports indicated a high risk of reoffending, and the court found that a lengthy determinate sentence was not preferable given the circumstances. Consequently, the court sentenced Mr G to preventive detention with a 7-year MPI. Additionally, Mr G is subject to the three strikes regime and must be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register. An interim non-publication order remains in place to protect the victims.

Orders