R v Hore

[2012] NZHC 1575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-001495 [2012] NZHC 1575

THE QUEEN

v

CAMERON STUART HORE

Counsel:         P A Currie for Crown

M I Sewell for Prisoner

Judgment:      4 July 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R V CAMERON STUART HORE HC CHCH CRI-2011-009-001495 [4 July 2012]

[1]      Mr  Hore,  you  appear  for  sentence  today  having  pleaded  guilty  prior  to committal to two charges of obtaining credit by deception, two charges of blackmail, six charges of sexually exploiting young persons under the age of 18 years and one charge of attempted sexual exploitation.

[2]      The blackmail and sexual exploitation charges each carry maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment.   The charge of attempted sexual exploitation has a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, and the charges of obtaining by deception carry maximum penalties of seven years imprisonment.

Background

[3]      Your offending involves no fewer than 11 young victims.  All of them were between the age of 11 and 19 years.  You made contact with your victims on the internet by posing as a female of around the victims’ age.   Through that initial contact, you then arranged for yourself to be introduced and you began to offer your victims money in exchange for performing sexual services for you.   The sexual services took various forms, but included having your victim masturbate in front of you on-line, and also included personal meetings at which you engaged in sexual activity of different types with them.  In each case, you offered your victims money in return for their services.   You did so in circumstances where there was no likelihood that they would be paid.

[4]      Your offending came to light when one of your victims, known as Victim A, went to the police.  You were arrested in January 2011, and the police seized your computer when they executed a search warrant at your address.   The police then analysed internet activity on your computer, and discovered the extent to which you had been offending in this way.

[5]      The bulk of the offending giving rise to the present charges arises out of the analysis of internet traffic during April 2010.   The police used the material they obtained from your computer to make contact with your remaining victims, who then generally acknowledged what had occurred.  I acknowledge the Crown’s submission that, if it had not been for Victim A going to the police, it is highly likely that your

offending would not have been uncovered.  Offending of this type is embarrassing and shameful for victims, and they have a natural reluctance to report offending of this type to either the authorities or their parents.

Sentencing Act 2002

[6]      In sentencing you, I need to pay particular attention to several purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.  These include the need to  hold  you  accountable  for  what  you  have  done  and  to  denounce  as  being completely unacceptable this type of conduct.   In addition, the sentence needs to deter both you and others who may be tempted to engage in such behaviour from doing so.  It is important, however, that I provide a sentence that is broadly designed to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Approach

[7]      I first need to select a starting point that reflects the culpability of your offending but does not take into account factors personal to you.   I then need to ascertain whether there are any aggravating factors personal to you that operate to increase the starting point I have selected.   I then need to reduce that end starting point to reflect any mitigating factors personal to you.

Starting point

[8]      Selecting a starting point on these charges is not an easy exercise, because there is very little case law in relation to charges such as these.  The true culpability in relation to the charges of obtaining by deception lies in the fact that you were prepared to have young people engage in intimate sexual acts on the basis of a promise of money when you knew that promise would never be kept.  These young people agreed to do these things because they needed the money.  You simply failed to deliver what you promised.

[9]      The culpability in the charges of sexual exploitation lies in the fact that you were prepared  to  exploit  young persons  for  your own sexual  needs.   This  is  a

relatively new charge, and it reflects Parliament’s concern that vulnerable young people, who may be naive in their dealings with others, should not be the subject of sexual exploitation such as this.

[10]     The blackmail charges arise out of threats that you made to two victims. These were particularly despicable acts, whereby you threatened to expose what your victims had done.  In one case you told the victim that you had taken a video of what had occurred, and you insinuated that this would be released or made public.  On one occasion, too, you threatened to visit your victim’s house.   This so terrified the victim that he left home until he was sure that you were not in fact going to go there.

[11]     There is no evidence that you ever took a video of what was occurring, but that is beside the point.  Your victim believed that you had filmed what he had done, and he was understandably deeply worried at the prospect that you might send that material into the public domain.  This factor is particularly concerning given the fact that your contact with your victims was virtually exclusively, initially, through the internet.   Your victim  would  have known that  you  had  the means  to  distribute photographic images widely.

[12]     Other aggravating factors include the wide extent of your offending.  The fact that you offended against no fewer than 11 victims is a matter of obvious concern. Your counsel submits that this factor must be viewed in light of the fact that it is now very easy to make contact with a large number of people simultaneously through the internet.   That  submission  does  not  give  proper  weight  to  the fact  that  contact through the internet was just the start of your offending.  In each case you developed your relationship with the victim to the point where they engaged in physical acts designed, and intended, by you to provide you with pleasure. The range of offending is also of concern because, as I have said, it took several different forms.  Inherent in the charges of sexual exploitation is the fact that you were dealing with young victims who, by their nature, were vulnerable to your suggestions.

[13]     I accept, also, that there must have been a considerable degree of planning and premeditation given the fact that you used false personae to develop your relationships with the victims.   I accept that in the initial stages you may have

adopted this technique merely as a method of initiating contact with other people. Very quickly, however, you must have realised that the promise of money was an easy way to have people do what you wanted, and it then became your established modus operandi.

[14]     Finally, the fact that you were prepared to threaten at least some of your victims is a matter of serious concern.  It deserves recognition over and above your other offending.

[15]     Counsel  have  referred  me  to  several  sentencing  decisions  dealing  with broadly similar offending.[1]   As always, however, context is everything and it is not possible to derive a great deal of assistance from them because in this area each case is so very different.

[1] R v Birch DC Christchurch CRI-2009-009-005706, 26 November 2010; R v Booten DC Christchurch

[16]     In fixing the starting point, I take the charges of sexual exploitation to be the lead charges.  I take that from the fact that Parliament has seen fit to apply a 14 year maximum penalty to those charges.

[17]     Given the number of victims, I consider that an appropriate starting point in relation to the charges  of sexual exploitation, attempted sexual exploitation and obtaining by deception is one of five years imprisonment.  As I have already indicated, I consider the blackmail charges to have their own characteristics that warrant recognition in a concrete sense.  I therefore apply an uplift of one year in relation to those charges.

[18]     This means that I have selected a starting point reflecting your culpability on all charges of six years imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

[19]    I now need to consider aggravating factors personal to you.   The only aggravating factor in this case is the fact that, after your arrest in January 2011, you

continued to offend.   Indeed, you offended against five further victims after your arrest.

[20]     I view that as a serious matter because, regardless of your perception prior to the point at which you were arrested, you must have known following your arrest that the authorities took your behavior very seriously.  You were facing a charge, or charges, as a result of your arrest.

[21]     Your counsel submits that, by this stage, you were effectively out of control and that your continued offending can be explained on that basis.  I do not accept that as a reasonable explanation for your persistence in offending following your arrest.  By that stage you must have known that what you were doing was wrong, and yet you were prepared to continue with this conduct in relation to not one, but five, further victims.  This aspect of your offending warrants, in my view, a further uplift of one year imprisonment.

[22]     This means that I arrive at an end starting point of seven years imprisonment before I take into account mitigating factors personal to you.

Mitigating factors

[23]     You appear for sentence at the age of 28 years.  The signal feature about your life is that you have been profoundly deaf since birth.  This has had, I have no doubt, many consequences for you.   Some of those explain, in some ways, the present offending.

[24]     First, I accept that you have always felt a sense of isolation because of the fact that you have been unable to communicate with your peers. This means that you have been unable to form relationships, both with other male peers and also with females.  It has resulted in you being isolated and standing out whilst at school.  I have no doubt  your offending arose, in part at least, because you found  online contact with your victims to be a fulfilling, for you, form of contact in circumstances where  your everyday life did not provide meaningful relationships.

[25]     Secondly, you yourself, have been the subject of abuse at the hands of two male abusers.   One set of abuse occurred before you were ten years of age.   The other  occurred  after  you  were  ten  years  of  age.    Although  you  disclosed  the offending at the time, it is clear that adequate steps were not taken to provide you with the counselling and therapy you needed to be able to deal with the issues that the abuse created for you.  That abuse may also have been a trigger in your current offending.

[26]     I accept also that your time in prison is going to be made that much harder by the fact that you are deaf.  You will find it more difficult to communicate with other prisoners, and they will find it difficult to communicate with you. The nature of your offending will also make your time in prison that much more difficult.

[27]     Further, I accept that since your incarceration you have begun to undertake therapy and counselling in a meaningful way.  This has been complicated by the fact that there have been staff changes in the psychological services servicing the prison and this has meant you have been required to see two different counsellors. Nevertheless, you are now some way along the road to rehabilitation.   It is clear, however, that you have a very long way to go.  You need to understand the factors underlying your offending, and you need to come to terms with the abuse that you yourself suffered.

[28]     I note with some concern that the psychologist your counsel engaged to provide a very helpful report to the Court concludes that you are at moderate to high risk of reoffending.  That is a matter that will obviously be a cause of concern for the prison authorities, and they will need to ensure that counselling and therapy are offered to you.

[29]     Finally, I note that you have expressed remorse for your offending.   Your counsel tells me that you have written a letter for delivery to each of the victims in which you express your remorse and you apologise for what you did to them.  I am not sure whether you have had the opportunity, Mr Hore, to read the victim impact statements.  They make it clear that your victims have all been adversely affected in significant ways by what you did to them.  Counsel for the Crown is correct when

she says that the overwhelming impression one gains from the victim impact statements is that your victims are angry at what occurred.  They are angry at you. They are angry at themselves for agreeing to do what they did.   They are deeply ashamed and embarrassed about what has happened.  They need to know that you now accept responsibility for your offending, and that you are remorseful for it.

[30]     When I take those factors into account, I am prepared to reduce your sentence by 18 months to reflect them.

[31]     I am also required to take account of your guilty pleas.  These indicate that you accept responsibility for what occurred, and they also mean that your victims do not need to come to Court to give evidence about what happened to them.

[32]     Although your pleas were not entered at the earliest opportunity, there are good reasons for that.  The Crown accepts you should be entitled to the full discount of 25 per cent in respect of them.  I, therefore, apply a further discount of one year five months to reflect your guilty pleas, leaving an end sentence of four years one month imprisonment.

Sentence

[33]     On each of the charges of sexual exploitation you are sentenced to four years one month imprisonment.  On the two charges of obtaining by false deception, you are sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.   On the charge of attempted sexual exploitation  you  are  sentenced  to  two  years  imprisonment,  and  on  each  of  the charges of blackmail you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.   All of those sentences will be served concurrently.

[34]     Stand down.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Counsel:

M I Sewell

CRI-2007-009-2456, 18 March 2008; Antolik v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2004-409-000042, 20
May 2004.