R v K - [2015] NZHC 1778

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-6097 [2015] NZHC 1778

THE QUEEN

v

K

Hearing: 30 July 2015

Appearances:

J Foster for Crown
M McIvor for Defendant

Sentence:

30 July 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOODHOUSE J

R v K [2015] NZHC 1778 [30 July 2015]

[1] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 52 offences of a sexual nature against six victims. I will refer to them using letters simply as A, B, C, D, E and F, and I know the Crown has used numbers. The letters correspond.

[2] The offences are as follows:

Victim A

(a) A is the older of your two daughters. The offences against her occurred between 2006 and 2010 when she was aged between 13 and
18 years. The offences, in terms of charges, are: three of rape; four of unlawful sexual connection, with one of those being a representative charge; six of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, of which two are representative; and one of indecent assault.

Victim B

(b) B is your younger daughter. The offences were between 2008 and

2014 when she was aged between 12 and 16 years. The offences are: four of rape, with three representative; four of unlawful sexual connection with three of those being representative; eight of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, with five of those being representative; and four offences of indecent assault.

(c) In addition, with B, there are ten offences of knowingly making an objectionable publication — photographs and videos — over a six year period to October 2014 and four related offences of possession of objectionable material, that is to say, photographs and videos, over the same period.

Victim C

(d)There is one charge relating to C — that is, an indecent act with a child under 12 — the substance of the charge. C was aged between five and ten.

Victim D

(e) There is the same charge in relation to D, who was aged six at the time.

Victims E and F

(f) There are two charges relating to victims E and F. These are charges of making an intimate visual recording. These offences occurred in April and June 2011.

[3] There is a detailed summary of facts which I have of course read and I take it into account. I do not intend to record the facts in any detail. It is unnecessary to do so to explain my sentence — and submissions of Mr McIvor on your behalf as well as those of Ms Foster for the Crown indicate why. What I will do is outline the essence of your offending, adapting a summary in the submissions for the Crown.

[4] Your convictions for the offences against your two daughters reflect a lengthy course of sexual offending by you against them. You used both of your daughters for your…

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 K

Details

AGLC: R v K [2015] NZHC 1778
Case: [2015] NZHC 1778
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand is R v K, where the defendant pleaded guilty to 52 offences of a sexual nature against six victims. The victims, referred to as A, B, C, D, E, and F, were abused by the defendant over a significant period, with the most severe offences occurring against his two daughters, A and B, who were between the ages of 12 and 18 at the time of the abuse. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the gravity of the offences, the extent of harm caused, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The legal issues in this case centred around establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal in R v AM, and assessing the various aggravating and mitigating factors that influenced the severity of the defendant's crimes. The court had to determine the impact of the defendant's grooming behaviour, the vulnerability of the victims, the scale and duration of the offending, and the breach of trust inherent in the familial relationships. Additionally, the court needed to consider the defendant's guilty pleas and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the starting point for the most serious offences against A and B was 20 years imprisonment, taking into account the aggravating factors such as the degree of planning, the vulnerability of the victims, the harm caused, and the breach of trust. The court further increased the starting point to account for the filming and distribution of the abusive material, ultimately setting the starting point at 21 to 21 and a half years. After applying the maximum reduction for the guilty pleas, the final sentence was set at 15 years and nine months imprisonment with a minimum term of eight years. The court also imposed concurrent sentences for the lesser offences, resulting in a comprehensive sentence that reflected the severity and impact of the defendant's actions.

Orders