R v Hall - [2021] NZHC 3033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CRI-2018-006-604

[2021] NZHC 3033

THE QUEEN

v

LIONEL KENNETH HALL

Sentencing: 12 October 2021 (Heard at Nelson)

Appearances:

J Webber for the Crown

T Bamford and E Riddell for the Defendant

Sentence:

12 October 2021

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Hall, I am now going to sentence you on the 25 charges, relating to sexual violation, that you were found guilty of at the jury trial on 10 June 2021.1

[2] I am going to approach that by first setting out the factual background of the offending. I will then outline the purposes and principles, which I apply when sentencing you today.

1 This decision was delivered orally, and the written version has been edited for grammar, flow and footnotes, but the substance remains unchanged.

R v HALL [2021] NZHC 3033 [12 October 2021]

[3] Sentencing is a two-stage approach. First, I look for comparative cases that counsel have put before me to reach a starting point. In doing that I will also consider the effect of your previous offending for which you were sentenced in 2005. Secondly, I will canvass any personal mitigating or aggravating factors to be taken into account in your case, which might warrant any discount or uplift to the sentence.

[4] I am going to refer to and I take into account the impact of your offending on the victims, from whom we have heard this morning when the victims had their statements read out.

[5] In your case, there is an additional step: consideration of preventive detention. That is a sentence of an indeterminate and not fixed term of imprisonment. That means you may be released on parole but will remain managed by the Department of Corrections for the rest of your life and may be re-called to prison at any time.

Background

Factual background

[6] The facts on which the charges are based took place over a number of years. They can be best summarised by grouping the various charges as they relate to the victims.

(a)In relation to FR, then about 11 or 12, between 18 June 1992 and 31 December 1996, you indecently assaulted her by touching her bottom over her clothing, when she visited your family in Murchison. This occurred in the vicinity of five to 10 occasions.

(b)In relation to AL, aged 15 at the time, you indecently assaulted her in a van while on a driving lesson with you. You touched her breasts and genital area and raped her. She lived with her own family at the time. When she moved into your family home, she received no protection from you. You continued to offend against her. Then aged 16 to 18, she was forced into a threesome with JH, which led to the representative charge of rape.

(c)In relation to MB you sexually abused him when he was aged 15 to 16. One set of…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2021] NZHC 3033
Case: [2021] NZHC 3033
Decision Date: 12 October 2021 (Heard at Nelson)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lionel Kenneth Hall was found guilty of 25 charges of sexual violation by a jury on 10 June 2021. The High Court at Blenheim was required to sentence Hall on the 25 charges relating to sexual violation. Hall was convicted of multiple counts of rape and indecent assault against five victims over a number of years, between 1992 and 2003. The victims were children and young people, and one of the victims was Hall's daughter. The Court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Hall's offending, whether it was a finite sentence or a sentence of preventive detention, and whether to grant permanent name suppression for Hall. The Court decided that a finite sentence of 17 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years was appropriate. The Court declined to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The Court also declined to grant permanent name suppression for Hall.

Orders