R v G

Case [2015] NZHC 2620 23 October 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ACCUSED PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2008-054-6204 [2015] NZHC 2620

THE QUEEN

v

G

Hearing: 23 October 2015

Appearances:

B D Vanderkolk and N Wynne for the Crown
S Hewson and C Hollingsworth for G

Sentence:

23 October 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

[1] Mr [G] you are here for sentencing on charges of sexual offending involving seven complainants during the period 1967 and 1992. You entered guilty pleas to those charges following a sentence indication which I gave on 28 July 2015.1

[2] A sentence indication proceeds on the basis of the information then before the Court. The Crown has reviewed the indication in light of the material now before the Court and, with particular emphasis on the powerful victim impact statements so
ably read by your victims in Court today, proposed that this Court could uplift the

1 R v G (Sentence indication of Mallon J) HC Palmerston North CRI-2008-054-6204, 28 July
2015.

R v G [2015] NZHC 2620 [23 October 2015]

sentence indication that I gave to you. As I have explained to him I am satisfied that the significant harm that your offending has caused was anticipated and taken into account when I gave that indication. It is accepted by your counsel that further information before the Court does not affect the appropriateness of the sentence indication that was given. Accordingly I will be sentencing you in accordance with it.

The charges

[3] You entered guilty pleas to 15 charges as follows:

(a) Complainant J: a representative charge of rape for the period between

1972 and 1975 (when J was between 12 and 14 years old); a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl under 12 years old for the period between 1969 and 1972 (when J was between nine and
11 years old); and a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl between 12 to 16 years old between 1972 and 1975 (when J was 12 to
14 years old).

(b)Complainant A: a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl under 12 during the period 1967 to 1974 (when A was under 12 years old).

(c) Complainant L: a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl under 12 during the period 1968 to 1975 (beginning when L was about five years old) and a charge of indecent assault on a girl between 12 to 16 on an occasion around 1976/77 (when L was 13 or
14 years old).

(d)Complainant K: a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl under 12 during the period 1969 to 1978 (beginning when K was about three or four years old) and a representative charge of indecent assault on a girl between 12 and 16 between 1978/79 (when…

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 [2015] NZHC 2620
Case: [2015] NZHC 2620
Decision Date: 23 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v G involved sentencing for serious sexual offences against seven complainants committed between 1967 and 1992. The defendant, G, was sentenced after entering guilty pleas to multiple charges of sexual offending, including rape and indecent assault. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the offences, the age of the victims, and the impact on the victims. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of the defendant's age, health, and the principle of totality.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering personal aggravating and mitigating factors, and applying discounts for factors such as the defendant's guilty pleas and health conditions. The court considered the Crown's argument for a starting point of 11 to 13 years imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point of 10 years. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, health issues, and the time already served as a special patient. The court applied a 20% discount for the defendant's guilty pleas and health issues, resulting in a total sentence of seven years imprisonment.

Mallon J ultimately sentenced the defendant to seven years imprisonment for the rape charges, with concurrent three-year sentences for the remaining charges. The court emphasised the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the significant psychological harm caused. The sentence was determined to be appropriate given the circumstances and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders