R v G - [2023] NZHC 434

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PENDING DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT SUPPRESSION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-044-002849

[2023] NZHC 434

THE KING

v

G

Hearing: 8 March 2023

Appearances:

H D L Steele and J D Dalton for Crown

A C Cresswell and S J Galler for Defendant

Sentence:

8 March 2023

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

[redacted version]

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland A C Cresswell, Auckland
S J Galler, Auckland

R v G [2023] NZHC 434 [8 March 2023]

[1]Tenā koe, Mr G, and kia orana. You may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You are here today to be sentenced for one charge of threatens to kill, two charges of distribution of objectionable publications, and six charges of possessing objectionable publications. You pleaded guilty to those offences on 9 November 2022.

[3] This is a big day for you and your whānau. It is also an important day for the public and our society. There are some things that I have to discuss in sentencing you today. There is a lot of information to take in. I am going to try and make it as simple as possible for you to follow. Let me tell you what is going to happen.

(a)First, I am going to describe your offending, that is, what you did.

(b)Second, I am going to discuss what the law says I have to take into account in deciding on your sentence.

(c)Third, I am going to consider the seriousness of your offending and set what we call a starting point for the sentence.

(d)Fourth, I am going to consider you and your background, and whether I should move that starting point up or down.

(e)Fifth, I will stand back and consider whether you should stay in prison or whether you should serve your sentence outside of prison.

(f)Sixth, when I have decided what the sentence should be, I will ask you to stand, and that is when I will sentence you.

[4] We are going to take a short break half-way through this sentence. I will let you know when that is going to happen.

Offending

[5]So, to the first step, which is to describe what you did.

[6] It all started in 2017, when you were about 16 years old. You began taking an interest in the conflict in the Middle East. By 2018 you had started researching ISIS

on the internet, including watching videos and reading articles about ISIS. You became radicalised towards the extreme views and beliefs of ISIS. That is, you started to believe what they said, and you supported them.

[7] In 2020, you used your Google Cloud account to store numerous documents, photographs, and videos located on the internet. These related to violent extremism. You stored and organised that material in various folders labelled according to the material filed.

[8] In…

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 [2023] NZHC 434
Case: [2023] NZHC 434
Decision Date: 8 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v G involves an individual, G, who was convicted of multiple charges, including threatening to kill, distributing objectionable publications, and possessing objectionable publications. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. G pleaded guilty to the charges on 9 November 2022. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing, the seriousness of the offending, and G's personal circumstances.

The court first outlined the offending, detailing G's radicalisation towards ISIS, his collection and organisation of violent extremist material, and his intent to carry out an attack in Auckland. G exchanged messages with an undercover police officer, detailing his plans and methods for an attack, including the use of explosives and knives. The distribution of objectionable publications and possession of such materials were also central to the charges.

In deciding the sentence, the court considered the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community, alongside the need for G's rehabilitation and reintegration. The seriousness of G's offending was assessed based on the nature and volume of the objectionable material, his active involvement, and his purpose. A starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment was determined for the distribution and possession charges, with an additional year for the threatening to kill charge, resulting in a total starting point of five and a half years.

Personal factors such as G's background, including hardship, neglect, and a life of violence, were taken into account. The court recognised G's vulnerability and the impact of his experiences on his offending. Discounts were applied for G's youth, lack of previous convictions, and personal circumstances, reducing the sentence to two years and five months. The court also considered G's prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration, noting his engagement with support programs and potential for reform.

Ultimately, the court decided that G should serve his sentence in prison due to the high risk he posed to the community and the need for continued support and supervision to prevent reoffending. The final sentence imposed was two years and five months' imprisonment, with an order for the destruction of the objectionable items and publications.

Orders