R v Henson - [2016] NZHC 1543

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-063-000542 [2016] NZHC 1543

THE QUEEN

v

BRENDAN PAUL HENSON

Counsel:
B D Vanderkolk and M J R Blaschke for Crown

F D Steedman for Defendant

Sentence:

8 July 2016

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Henson, this morning I am sentencing you on the following charges: (1) two charges of indecently assaulting a child under 12;1 and
(2) one charge of abduction for the purposes of sexual connection.2

[2] You pleaded guilty to these charges on 24 March 2016.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 208. Maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.

R v HENSON [2016] NZHC 1543 [8 July 2016]

[3] The District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you so that a sentence of preventive detention could be considered.3 I have decided not to impose a sentence of preventive detention and I will explain why during the course of this decision. I record however, the Crown acknowledges that it would be difficult to impose such a sentence on the basis of the materials before me.

[4] In sentencing you I shall:

(1) describe the circumstances of your offending;

(2) examine the impact of your offending on the victim and her family; (3) outline your previous offending;
(4) outline your personal circumstances;

(5)explain why preventive detention is not suitable in the circumstances of this case;

(6) explain the starting point to your sentence;

(7) explain the adjustments that I am making to that starting point; (8) explain your sentence; and
(9) explain the minimum period of imprisonment that I shall impose.

The circumstances of your offending

[5] The three charges relate to two separate incidents of sexual offending by you against your victim, a five year old girl whom you did not know.

[6] The first incident occurred on Wednesday 10 February 2016 at about

3.00 pm. You watched the victim and her sister from a park bench, before inviting

the victim to come and sit with you. You indecently touched her leg before the victim’s sister intervened and the two girls ran home. You were subsequently seen on CCTV footage travelling in the same direction as the girls in your car. The next morning you were also observed driving down the same street towards the victim’s home.

[7] The second incident occurred on the morning of Friday 12 February 2016. Your car was travelling towards the victim’s home at about 8.20 am, shortly before the victim and her sisters walked to school. As the victim and her sisters were walking to school, you pulled up beside them, got out of your car, picked the victim up and put her in your car. The victim’s sisters tried to stop you.

[8] You then drove off with the victim and took her to a rural…

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 Henson

Details

AGLC: R v Henson [2016] NZHC 1543
Case: [2016] NZHC 1543
Decision Date: 8 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry, delivered a judgement in the case of The Queen v. Brendan Paul Henson, wherein Henson was convicted of two charges of indecently assaulting a child under 12 and one charge of abduction for the purposes of sexual connection. Henson was sentenced to imprisonment, and the court considered imposing a sentence of preventive detention. The court examined the circumstances of Henson's offending, the impact on the victim and her family, Henson's previous offending, his personal circumstances, and the reasons for not imposing a sentence of preventive detention. The court also discussed the starting point for Henson's sentence, adjustments made to the starting point, and the final sentence imposed, including a minimum period of imprisonment.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether a sentence of preventive detention was appropriate, the appropriate starting point for Henson's sentence, adjustments to be made to the starting point, and the final sentence to be imposed, including the minimum period of imprisonment. The court concluded that preventive detention was not suitable in this case, and the appropriate sentence was eight years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.

The court's reasoning was based on the seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victim and her family, Henson's previous offending, and the need for protection of the community. The court also considered Henson's motivation to participate in a special treatment programme for child sex offenders as an important factor in deciding on the appropriate sentence. The court imposed concurrent sentences for the indecent assault charges and determined the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment to protect the community from Henson.

Orders