R v Hall - [2014] NZHC 3097

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PURSUANT TO S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-070-004682 [2014] NZHC 3097

THE QUEEN

v

TREVOR RICHARD HALL

Hearing: 5 December 2014

Appearances:

S A Christensen for the Crown
T R Bayley and A C Balme for the Defendant

Judgment:

5 December 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Holland Beckett, Tauranga

Counsel: A C Balme, Barrister, Tauranga

R v TREVOR RICHARD HALL [2014] NZHC 3097 [5 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] Trevor Richard Hall, on 1 August 2014 you pleaded guilty to 11 charges of sexual and violent offending against two young adults and a child. You now appear for sentence. The Crown has made an application for preventive detention, although it concedes its imposition is finely balanced in this case.

Factual background

[2] You pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, one charge of assault on a child, three charges of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, three charges of doing an indecency with a girl aged between 12 and 16 years, and two charges of attempted sexual violation. Rape and unlawful sexual connection carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

[3] Your offending dates back to 1996 and spans 14 years. There are three complainants and three distinct episodes of offending. Each of the victims is present today. Two of those victims have read out their victim impact statements to the Court.

[4] The first complainant, S, was in your care for a weekend sometime in 1996. At the time you were 44 years old and S was a young boy aged six or seven. He is […]. At night time you told S it was time for a shower. You took off his clothes and you both got into the shower. You suggested to S that they play a game where you would try and fit your penis into his mouth. You told him that if he did not play he would not get any dinner. You then inserted your erect penis into S’s mouth and then thrust back and forth for several minutes before pulling out and telling S “you lose because you didn’t get me to finish”.

[5] Later that night you told S he was to be punished. You instructed S to take off his pants and to get on the end of the bed on his hands and knees. You proceeded to anally penetrate S for what he remembers to be approximately 20 minutes. After the event you told S that he must not tell anyone about what you had done.

[6] The next day you had a visitor at your house. S asked the visitor what it meant when someone puts their penis into your mouth. You brushed off the question, suggesting to the visitor that S must have…

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 [2014] NZHC 3097
Case: [2014] NZHC 3097
Decision Date: 5 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, the case of R v Hall involved the defendant, Trevor Richard Hall, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual and violent offences against two young adults and a child. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Hall, considering both a finite sentence and the possibility of preventive detention. The legal issues included determining the appropriate start point for sentencing based on the nature and severity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Hall's previous convictions, as well as assessing the risk of reoffending and whether preventive detention was warranted.

The court considered the guidelines set out in R v AM and found that Hall's offending against the first complainant fell within the low end of band 3, attracting a start point of twelve years imprisonment. The court also considered the additional offending against the other two complainants, determining that an uplift of three years imprisonment was sufficient to account for this. After considering mitigating factors such as Hall's age and ill health, the court decided on a sentence of 11 years and three months imprisonment, with a minimum period of six years and six months.

In assessing the risk of reoffending, the court found that Hall was at a high risk of further sexual offending, most likely against pre-pubescent children who are known to him. However, due to Hall's advanced age and deteriorating health, the court concluded that a lengthy determinate sentence was preferable if it provided adequate protection for the community. The court decided against imposing preventive detention, considering that Hall's risk could be managed in the community with close supervision.

The final orders of the court were that Hall be sentenced to 11 years and three months imprisonment on the main charges, with a minimum period of six years and six months. For the other charges, he was to serve concurrent sentences ranging from six months to four years imprisonment.

Orders