R v G - [2025] NZHC 2772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2022-088-994

[2025] NZHC 2772

THE KING

v

G

Hearing: 23 September 2025

Appearances:

B O’Connor for the Crown

M R Ridgley for the defendant

Date:

23 September 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF BLANCHARD J

Solicitors:
MWIS Lawyers, Whangārei
Thomson Wilson Solicitors, Whangārei

R v G [2025] NZHC 2772 [23 September 2025]

[1]Mr G, you appear for sentence on:

(a)four charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;1

(b)two charges of sexual violation by rape;2

(c)five charges of indecency with a girl under 12;3 and

(d)three charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12.4

[2] You were convicted of these charges on 12 November 2024 following a trial by jury in the District Court at Whangarei. You were found not guilty of one charge of assault with a weapon.

[3] Sentencing is a formal process that takes some time. That is because I must explain the reasons for the sentence I am to impose. You and all the people in Court, and any court that reviews the sentence, must know the basis upon which I have imposed the sentence.

[4] I acknowledge the victims, whānau and friends who are here in Court today. This is no doubt a difficult day for everyone involved.

[5] Mr G, a key matter I have to decide today is whether to sentence you to preventive detention. That is why you appear for sentence in the High Court. Preventive detention is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. You would be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(b). Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 128(1)(a). Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 133(1)(b) (now repealed). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 132(3). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[6] I will first summarise your offending. Although you and the victims will be familiar with these facts, it is important that I outline them before I impose your sentence.

[7] In speaking to you today, Mr G, I will refer to each of the victims by their names. But, of course, they both have permanent name suppression, and the published version of my sentencing notes will anonymise them.5

CJ

[8] Your first set of convictions concerns offending against CJ. CJ was a childhood friend of your daughter BG. You offended against CJ on two occasions between 22 January 2003 and 21 January 2007. CJ was between five and nine years’ old.

[9] On one occasion, CJ was invited to your home in Whangārei for a sleepover with BG to celebrate her birthday. CJ was lying on the couch in the lounge room. BG was lying on a mattress in front of the couch.

[10] You entered the lounge and lay down behind CJ on the couch. Your stomach was touching her back. You began to massage CJ’s shoulders and…

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 [2025] NZHC 2772
Case: [2025] NZHC 2772
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Mr G, was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against children, including rape and sexual violation. The victims, CJ and BG, were childhood friends of the defendant's daughter and his daughter herself. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering whether a sentence of preventive detention was warranted. The court first outlined the nature and extent of the defendant's offending, noting the vulnerability of the victims and the severity of the harm caused. The court then established a starting point for sentencing based on the defendant's crimes, which was adjusted for totality and personal circumstances. Following this, the court examined whether a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community, considering expert reports and the defendant's efforts to address his offending. Ultimately, the court decided that a lengthy finite sentence would provide adequate protection and declined to impose preventive detention. The court sentenced the defendant to a total of 10 years' imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with his existing sentence.

Orders