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…

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 Hore

Details

AGLC: R v Hore [2012] NZHC 1575
Case: [2012] NZHC 1575
Decision Date: 4 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Cameron Stuart Hore was sentenced for multiple charges, including obtaining credit by deception, blackmail, and sexually exploiting young persons under 18 years of age. The case involved at least 11 victims, all of whom were between 11 and 19 years old. Hore contacted the victims online, posing as a female around their age, and offered them money in exchange for sexual services. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the nature and extent of the offending, the vulnerable age of the victims, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

The legal issues the court had to decide included determining the starting point for the sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the extent and premeditation of the offending, and mitigating factors such as Hore's age, his deafness since birth, and his history of being a victim of abuse. The court also needed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, which include holding the offender accountable, denouncing unacceptable conduct, and providing a sentence that assists in the offender's rehabilitation.

The court selected a starting point of six years imprisonment, reflecting the culpability of Hore's actions. It considered several aggravating factors, including Hore's continued offending after his arrest, which resulted in an additional uplift of one year. The court then assessed mitigating factors such as Hore's age, his disability, his history of abuse, and his remorse. The court reduced the sentence by 18 months to reflect these mitigating factors and applied a further discount of one year and five months for Hore's guilty pleas. The final sentence was four years and one month imprisonment on each count of sexual exploitation, one year for obtaining by deception, two years for attempted sexual exploitation, and two years for blackmail, all to be served concurrently.

In summary, the court sentenced Hore to four years and one month imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of his offending, his personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing. The sentence reflects the need to hold Hore accountable, denounce his unacceptable conduct, and provide a sentence that assists in his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders