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
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,
OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 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-2020-096-002253
[2022] NZHC 1519
THE QUEEN v
G
Sentencing hearing: 15 December 2021 Counsel:
S Bishop and A Jeffares for the Crown P Paino for Mr G
Judgment:
5 July 2022
JUDGMENT OF GWYN J
(Amendment of sentence pursuant to s 180 Criminal Procedure Act 2011)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Wellington Paino & Robinson, Upper Hutt
R v G (Amendment of Sentence) [2022] NZHC 1519 [5 July 2022]
[1] On 15 December 2021, I sentenced the defendant to preventive detention for a minimum period of seven years’ imprisonment (MPI), seven years’ imprisonment in relation to incest,1 one year’s imprisonment in relation to an indecent act on a boy under 16 years2 and two years’ imprisonment in relation to an indecent assault on a girl under 12 years.3 The sentences are to be served concurrently.
[2] In my minute of 15 December 2021, I amended the defendant’s sentence to impose a definitive imprisonment sentence for charges 1, 3 and 4, on the basis the defendant was aged under 18 at their time of offending.
[3] The Crown has since requested the Court to amend the defendant’s sentence so the sentence of preventive detention should not apply in relation to charge 2.
[4] Under s 87(2)(a)-(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002, the defendant must be at least 18 years at the time of committing their offence in order for preventive detention to be imposed. For offences committed prior to 30 June 2002, the offender must have been at least 21 years old at the time of committing the relevant offence as this was the age requirement for preventive detention at that time.4
[5] The defendant was born on 2 April 1968. Charge 2 relates to offending that occurred from 1 January to 29 December 1987, when the defendant was approximately 19 years old. On that basis, the Crown submits that preventive detention cannot be imposed in relation to this charge.
[6] Counsel for the defendant has advised that the defendant supports the change in sentence.
[7] Accordingly, I amend the sentence, pursuant to s 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which provides that the Court may correct an erroneous sentence.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 130.
2 Section 140(b). This is a repealed provision in force at the time of offending.
3 Section 132(3).
4 R v Mist [2005] NZSC 77, [2006] 3 NZLR 145.
[8] I direct that the sentence of preventive detention imposed does not apply in relation to charge 2.
Gwyn J
- AGLC
- R v G [2022] NZHC 1519
- Case
- [2022] NZHC 1519
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around the applicability of preventive detention for the charge in question, considering the defendant's age at the time of the offense. The court needed to assess whether the defendant met the age requirement for preventive detention under section 87(2)(a)-(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002. Given that the defendant was approximately 19 years old when the offense occurred, the Crown argued that preventive detention could not be imposed for that particular charge. The court also had to consider the defendant's support for the amendment of the sentence as advised by their counsel.
The court, after considering the arguments and the defendant's age at the time of the offense, amended the sentence pursuant to section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows the court to correct an erroneous sentence. The court concluded that the sentence of preventive detention did not apply in relation to the charge in question, given the defendant's age. The court's reasoning was based on statutory requirements and the defendant's age at the time of committing the offense.
The final orders of the court were to amend the sentence so that the sentence of preventive detention did not apply in relation to charge 2, in accordance with the statutory provisions and the defendant's age at the time of the offense. The defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant supported the amendment of the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.