R v King - [2013] NZHC 3362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-009-004147 [2013] NZHC 3362

REGINA

v

LAISON REIHANA KING

Hearing: 13 December 2013

Counsel: AMS Williams for the Crown
R A Peters for Mr King

Judgment: 13 December 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] I am not going to impose a sentence of preventive detention and I am going to explain why that is in a moment, but as Mr Williams has just said and Mr Peters has accepted, you have to be sentenced to prison for a reasonable lengthy term.

[2] Mr King you are for sentence today on five charges of burglary, two of indecent assault and one of theft. You entered pleas of guilty to those charges in the District Court on 13 May. A Judge in that Court ordered the preparation of health assessors’ reports because it was considered that a sentence of preventive detention may be appropriate. Eventually however, on 6 November you were committed to this Court for sentence because the reports by then obtained, did leave the door for
preventive detention open.

REGINA v KING [2013] NZHC 3362 [13 December 2013]

The facts of your offending

[3] On the night of 2-3 April last, you forced entry into a residence by breaking a window. You stole electrical items to a value of almost $2,500. I infer that the occupants were absent at the time.

[4] A few days later on 5 April you entered another house and again stole items, this time to a value of $2,700. A week or two later on 17 or 18 April you went to another residential house and stole a bike that was parked to the back of the property. That gives rise to a charge of theft as compared to the burglary charges in relation to the previous two matters.

[5] On 17 April in the early hours of the morning, between 4.00 and 6.00 am, you committed a further burglary on an address in Hillary Crescent. The front door had been left unlocked. You entered and located items to a value of about $1,000. Worst still however, you went into a bedroom at the address where there was a six year old girl asleep. You lifted up the covers to the bed and touched her on the leg, she screamed and you ran off.

[6] Two days later, at about 5.00 am you committed a further burglary and indecent assault, this time on an address at Ballantyne Avenue. You entered through an open window. You located a laptop and a wallet, valued at about $250. Again you went into a bedroom at the address and on this occasion you encountered a
16 year old girl who was asleep. You touched her leg, she woke up and you asked if you could get into bed with her. As soon as she appreciated you were an intruder, she screamed and again you ran from the house.

[7] Three days later on 22 April, you returned to…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2013] NZHC 3362
Case: [2013] NZHC 3362
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v King, the defendant was convicted of multiple charges including burglary, indecent assault, and theft. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, which involved multiple incidents of breaking into residential properties and committing sexual offences against the occupants. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant should be sentenced to a fixed term in prison or to preventive detention, which would result in indefinite imprisonment at the discretion of the parole board.

The court found that the defendant's history of similar offending, coupled with a concerning pattern of burglary and sexual gratification, warranted consideration of preventive detention. However, after examining the defendant's personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing, his previous attempts at rehabilitation, and his recent cooperation with authorities, the court concluded that a lengthy fixed term sentence was preferable. This decision was based on the belief that such a sentence would provide adequate protection for the community while offering the defendant an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the defendant to a total of five years in prison, with a minimum term of two and a half years to be served. The court also issued warnings regarding the defendant's future conduct, emphasizing that any further sexual offending would likely result in a sentence of preventive detention. Additionally, the court noted that any future serious violent offences would be subject to the three strikes legislation, meaning the defendant would serve the sentence without parole or early release.

Orders