R v King - [2012] NZHC 3353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-044-17585 [2012] NZHC 3353

THE QUEEN

v

DEREK LESTER KING

Hearing: 12 December 2012

Counsel: JM Jelas for Crown
NC Wintour for Offender

Judgment: 12 December 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors:
J Jelas, Meredith Connell, Auckland: june.jelas@meredithconnell.co.nz
N Wintour, Barrister, Auckland: nwintour@civicchambers.co.nz

R V DEREK LESTER KING HC AK CRI-2011-044-17585 [12 December 2012]

[1] Derek Lester King, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of three counts of having sexual connection with a person aged 12 to 16 years; nine counts of receiving commercial sexual services from a person under 18 years; one count of encouraging a person under 18 to provide commercial sexual services to you; and three counts of supplying the Class C controlled drug Cannabis to a person under 18 years. You are also for sentence today on two counts of indecent assault to which you pleaded guilty the day after the jury’s verdicts in respect of the other charges.

[2] These charges arose from the predatory and exploitative behaviour you have engaged in with girls and young women over several decades. You have a strong deviant sexual attraction to young female teenagers which you satisfied by seeking out vulnerable street kids and luring them back to your home with offers of food and shelter. In the seclusion of your home you bribed them with money, alcohol and occasionally cannabis to provide you with sexual services.

[3] I am satisfied that the evidence given by the seven complainants about your relationships with them revealed merely the tip of a very deep iceberg.

[4] Pigeon Park in the central city is a place which you knew would be frequented by street kids. In 1985, TF was a 13-year-old prostitute and glue sniffer. You invited her to your home for shelter and refreshment and on two separate occasions you paid her to have anal and vaginal sex with you. You pleaded guilty to the two charges of indecent assault laid in respect of that offending. I accept that TF, like most if not all of your victims, was no stranger to sex when you encountered them and that you did not corrupt her, but you preyed on her and exploited her deprived circumstances for your own gratification.

[5] In 1998, NH was living with you at the age of only 14 years; her evidence was that she had sex with you regularly. The charge relating to her allegations was that you supplied her with cannabis, the jury’s verdict meaning that you knew she was under 18 when you did that.

[6] In 2002, you were convicted of similar offences committed in 2000. I will return to that offending in a moment, but the bulk of the charges on which you went to trial this year related to repeat offending both in respect of drugs and sex during
2010 and 2011. The jury convicted you of supplying cannabis to SHT, then aged around 14…

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 [2012] NZHC 3353
Case: [2012] NZHC 3353
Decision Date: 12 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Derek Lester King was convicted by a jury of multiple charges, including having sexual connections with minors, receiving commercial sexual services from individuals under 18 years, encouraging a minor to provide commercial sexual services, and supplying cannabis to minors. King also pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault. The charges stemmed from his predatory behavior towards young girls and women over several decades, exploiting their vulnerable circumstances for his sexual gratification.

The primary legal issues in this case involved determining the appropriate sentence for King's extensive and predatory sexual offending against minors, taking into account the gravity of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the risk of reoffending. The court had to balance the purposes of holding King accountable, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing his conduct, deterring him and others from similar offenses, providing community protection, and assisting in his rehabilitation.

In sentencing King, the court considered the extensive nature and duration of his offending, the significant psychological and emotional harm inflicted on his victims, and his lack of genuine remorse or insight into his behavior. The court found that a lengthy finite term of imprisonment would not adequately protect the community from King, who was deemed a high risk of reoffending. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of 7 years' imprisonment to ensure community protection.

Additionally, the court imposed concurrent finite sentences for the charges not eligible for preventive detention. These included three years' imprisonment for each count of indecent assault, three years for each count of supplying cannabis to a minor, three years for encouraging a minor to provide commercial sexual services, and four-and-a-half years for each count of receiving commercial sexual services from a minor.

Orders