R v Hammond - [2015] NZHC 1030

ANONYMISED TO COMPLY WITH S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 WHICH PROHIBITS PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT(S)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-009-10956 [2015] NZHC 1030

THE QUEEN

v

STANLEY ROSS HAMMOND

Hearing: 15 May 2015

Appearances:

C J Boshier and C D Newman for Crown
A M McCormick and CRD Williams for Defendant

Judgment:

15 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Stanley Ross Hammond, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to 72 charges involving indecencies on a child, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and making, possessing and distributing objectionable images. You were also subsequently convicted on 23 further charges involving unlawful sexual connection, including rape, and indecencies on a child or young person and making and distributing an objectionable publication.

[2] In summary, the offending includes 23 charges of making an objectionable publication, three of possessing an objectionable publication, 38 of distributing an objectionable publication, 18 charges of indecent acts on a child under the age of
12 years, two charges of indecent acts on a young person aged 12 to 16 years,

10 charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and a charge of sexual

R v STANLEY ROSS HAMMOND [2015] NZHC 1030 [15 May 2015]

violation by rape. These 95 charges arose out of offending which occurred between

2003 and 2013 x.

[3] The lead offences here are the unlawful sexual connection by rape, and the anal intercourse and oral penetration. The maximum penalty for these offences is
20 years. The charges involving indecent acts on a child or a young person, they attract maximum penalties of 10 and seven years respectively.

[4] And the charges of possessing objectionable publications have a maximum sentence, in your case of five years, while of making and distributing objectionable publications, they attract a maximum penalty of 10 years.

A summary of the offending

[5] Now the Crown prepared a very full summary of facts which runs to some

30 pages but I advised counsel in advance, that I decided not have it read in Court today, both because of its length and to spare the victims having to hear that full account of the offending recounted here.

[6] However, in order to provide some context for sentencing, I now give a simple overview of your offending.

Background

[7] x

[8] x

[9] Your offending against A began no later than in 2003 when she turned six. It involved vaginal touching and digital penetration of her vagina including x. You would also make her touch your penis and at times hold her hand on your penis until you ejaculated. She recalls x you performing oral sex on her, using your tongue to lick her vagina and she would be too scared to say anything and would just lie there.

[10] A particular memory she has is that, x, you would undo your fly, and make her touch your penis. That would only stop when…

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 Hammond

Details

AGLC: R v Hammond [2015] NZHC 1030
Case: [2015] NZHC 1030
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hammond, the defendant, Stanley Ross Hammond, appeared for sentencing having pleaded guilty to a series of serious sexual offences involving minors, as well as charges related to the creation, possession, and distribution of objectionable images. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence that would adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes, serve as a deterrent, and protect the community from further harm.

The key legal issue was whether a lengthy finite term of imprisonment would be sufficient to prevent the defendant from reoffending, or if preventive detention should be imposed. The court examined various factors including the nature and extent of the offending, the harm caused to the victims, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court found that while the defendant's crimes were severe, the risk of reoffending was not so high as to warrant preventive detention, given the length of the finite sentence and the defendant's age at the time of release.

The court concluded that a total sentence of 22 years imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years, was appropriate. This sentence comprised various terms for different charges, all to be served concurrently, except for the five-year term for making objectionable publications, which was to be served cumulatively. The court found that this sentence would adequately denounce the defendant's conduct, hold him accountable, and protect the community.

Orders