R v Haggar - [2014] NZHC 3082

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS(ES) UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED BY S 139A OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-019-0117799 [2014] NZHC 3082

THE QUEEN

v

ALBERT PAUL HAGGAR

Hearing: 4 December 2014

Appearances:

J Tarrant for Crown
A Beveridge for Prisoner

Judgment:

4 December 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

R v HAGGAR [2014] NZHC 3082 [4 December 2014]

Charges

[1] Mr Haggar, following a sentence indication hearing, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) 17 charges of assault on a child (in respect of which the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment on each charge);

(b) two charges of injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others

(the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment on each charge);

(c) one charge of doing an indecent act on a young person (the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment); and

(d)one charge of male assaults female (the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment).

Facts

[2] The offending occurred over a period of seven years from 2005 to March

2012.

[3] There are three victims: two child victims (to whom I will refer as “V1” and

“V2”) and one adult victim (“V3”). V1 was between 5 and 12, and V2 was between

7 and 13 during the period of the offending. It occurred while you had care of the children.

[4] The offending involved physical abuse, specific acts of injury, and sexual abuse of a reasonably minor nature, against V2. In the main, it appears that the offending was punishment for perceived bad behaviour such as not carrying out chores in the way you expected, or on occasions when you lost your temper, or indeed for no particular reason.

[5] The offending comprised slapping and hitting the children around the face and head with your hands or using a wooden spatula; punches to the children’s stomach and face; picking them up and throwing them across to the wall or against a

wall, or forcing them against a wall; on one occasion dropping hot tea onto one of the children’s leg; kicks in their backs; and forcing a spoon of chilli powder into one of the children’s mouth.

[6] The children suffered bruising, black eyes, a burst ear drum, swelling of fluid on the elbow and injury to the tail bone. They were terrified of being with you.

[7] The sexual abuse of V2 involved sucking or touching her breasts. The male assaults female charge relates to slapping V3 on the face.

Victim impact statements

[8] You have heard two victim impact statements read out this morning from V3 and V2. I have read a further victim impact statement from V1. It is fair to say that the two children have suffered greatly, both physically and emotionally, as a result of your offending. V2 suffered a painful tailbone injury…

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 Haggar

Details

AGLC: R v Haggar [2014] NZHC 3082
Case: [2014] NZHC 3082
Decision Date: 4 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Albert Paul Haggar involved the defendant pleading guilty to multiple charges of assault on children, injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others, doing an indecent act on a young person, and male assaults female. The charges stemmed from a period of abuse over seven years, affecting two child victims and one adult victim. The court was required to decide on the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the nature and duration of the offending, the harm caused to the victims, and the principles of sentencing, particularly those concerning violence against children. Additionally, the court had to weigh personal factors such as the defendant's guilty pleas, his level of remorse, and his engagement in rehabilitative treatment.

The court determined that the most serious charges, the two charges of injuring with reckless disregard for safety, warranted a starting point of three years' imprisonment. An uplift of three months was applied for the charges of doing an indecent act and male assaults female. Considering the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and his guilty pleas, discounts were applied, resulting in a final sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The court also considered an application for the suppression of the defendant's name but ultimately decided against it, while ensuring the anonymity of the victims as per statutory requirements.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a two-year and four-month imprisonment sentence for the defendant, with individual sentences for each charge to be served concurrently. The court emphasised the importance of the defendant continuing his rehabilitative efforts and expressed hope for his reintegration into society as a useful member. The names of the victims were protected to prevent identification, and the defendant's name was not suppressed.

Orders