R v H

The case of R v H was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, on April 2, 2015. Mr H, the defendant, was convicted of six charges of indecent assault on a young person and two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, both involving a 13-year-old victim, his niece. The Crown argued for the representative charge of unlawful sexual connection to be the lead charge, considering it as aggravated by the specific unlawful sexual connection charge and the other range of indecencies which took place. The Crown argued for a sentence in the middle of Band 2 of the guideline judgment, R v AM, considering the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, the scale of the offending, an element of premeditation or grooming, and the significant harm caused. The offender's counsel argued that the culpability factors relevant were a breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, and any other factors were seen as reflecting culpability insofar as they were a natural part of all sexual offending.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002, including the need for the sentence to demonstrate accountability for harm done to the victim and the community and particularly, responsibility for, and acknowledgment of that harm. The court also considered the need to denounce and to some extent deter this type of behaviour. The court found that the aggravating factors relevant to the defendant's offending against the victim included the extent of any resulting loss, damage, or harm; breach of trust or authority; vulnerability of the victim; and premeditation. The court found that the offending was more clearly seen as in Band 2 given the nature of the trusting relationship between the defendant and the victim. The court imposed a sentence of four years and three months imprisonment on the lead charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and concurrent sentences for the other charges.

The court in R v H considered the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the defendant's offending and personal circumstances in determining an appropriate sentence. The court found that the aggravating factors justified a four and a half year starting point, and an uplift of three months was necessary to reflect the defendant's indecent assaults against the victim, particularly their frequency. The court found that the only mitigating factor available was the defendant's previous good character, and a six-month discount was appropriate. The final sentence was four years and three months imprisonment on the lead charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and concurrent sentences for the other charges.