R v Gage - [2013] NZHC 2053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-019-001895 [2013] NZHC 2053

THE QUEEN

v

GLEN JAMES GAGE

Hearing: 9 August 2013

Counsel:

JN Foster for the Crown
P Kaye for the Prisoner

Judgment:

9 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton.
P Kaye, Auckland.

R v GAGE [2013] NZHC 2053 [9 August 2013]

[1] Mr Gage you appear for sentence today on 49 charges of which you were found guilty after a trial in this Court. There were nine types of count with which you were charged, being 22 counts of male assaults female, 12 of injuring with intent to injure, three of assault with a weapon, four of sexual violation by rape, three of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, two of threatening to kill, one of intentional damage, one of kidnapping and one of indecent assault. I summarise
these and set out the maximum terms of imprisonment:

Offence Number of charges Act / Section Maximum penalty

Male assaults female
22

(one representative count)

Crimes Act 1961,

s 194(b)

2 years’

imprisonment

Injuring with intent

to injure
12
Crimes Act 1961,

s 189(2)

5 years’

imprisonment

Assault with a

weapon
3
Crimes Act 1961,

s 202C(1)(a)

5 years’

imprisonment

Sexual violation by

rape

4

(one representative count)

Crimes Act 1961,

s 128B

20 years’

imprisonment

Sexual violation by

unlawful sexual connection
3
Crimes Act 1961,

s 128B

20 years’

imprisonment

Threatening to kill 2
Crimes Act 1961,

s 306(a)

7 years’

imprisonment

Intentional damage 1
Crimes Act 1961,

s 269(2)(a)

7 years’

imprisonment

Kidnapping 1
Crimes Act 1961,

s 209(b)

14 years’

imprisonment

Indecent assault 1
Crimes Act 1961,

s 135.

7 years’

imprisonment

[2] The events in question took place between 1996 and 2011. There were five victims, Ms A, Ms W, Ms T, Ms G and Ms L. All of them had been a partner to you for varying periods. It would take a very long time to go through all the facts of the

various counts, and I do not propose to do so. I will, however, make some general remarks about them.

[3] All five of the complainants are intelligent, decent members of our community. There was a pattern in the way by which matters evolved. They entered into relationships with you based on love and trust. They willingly made the decision to live with you believing you to be a good man who they could make their lives with, and it is possible to see why that was so as there is no doubt that you presented as a stable and decent person yourself, able to offer them a secure relationship.

[4] The pattern in the relationships was that after that initial period of happiness that clearly marked the start of your partnerships, jealousy and anger started to intervene. It was always after they had moved in with you or you had moved in with them, and things had been settled for some weeks or possibly longer, that…

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 Gage

Details

AGLC: R v Gage [2013] NZHC 2053
Case: [2013] NZHC 2053
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gage was heard by the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, where the defendant, Glen James Gage, appeared for sentencing on 49 charges of various violent and sexual offenses against five different female partners over a period of 15 years. The offenses included male assaults on females, injuring with intent, assault with a weapon, rape, sexual violation, threatening to kill, intentional damage, kidnapping, and indecent assault. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflects the gravity of the offenses, the pattern of behavior, and the impact on the victims, while also adhering to sentencing principles and precedents.

The primary legal issue was to determine the appropriate concurrent sentence for the sexual offenses, considering the multiple instances of rape and other sexual violations, and then to decide on the uplift for the other violent offenses to ensure the total sentence is proportionate and reflects the totality of the offending. The court had to balance the severity of the offenses, the defendant's lack of remorse, and his history of violent behavior against the principles of proportionality and deterrence. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate minimum non-parole period to ensure public protection and to deter the defendant from reoffending.

The court reasoned that the sexual offenses, characterized by multiple instances of rape and other sexual violations over an extended period against four different victims, warranted a sentence within the highest band of sentencing guidelines for such offenses. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the other violent offenses and decided on a two-year uplift for these offenses, resulting in a starting point of 19 years' imprisonment. The court declined to further increase the sentence based on the defendant's prior convictions for violence, as it believed doing so would result in an excessively harsh sentence. The court also considered the defendant's lack of remorse and his denial of the sexual offenses, which influenced the decision to set a lengthy minimum non-parole period of nine and a half years to ensure adequate deterrence and public protection.

The court sentenced Glen James Gage to a total imprisonment term of 19 years, with all sentences to run concurrently. The defendant must serve a minimum non-parole period of nine and a half years. This sentence reflects the severity of the offenses, the need for denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, and adheres to the principles of proportionality and totality in sentencing.

Orders