R v Laurence - [2013] NZHC 956

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
FURTHER ORDER MADE PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRISONER AND COMPLAINANTS AND THE ADDRESSES WHERE THE OFFENDING OCCURRED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-032-000812 [2013] NZHC 956

THE QUEEN

v

ARRON PAUL LAURENCE

Counsel: I R Murray for Crown
G L Turkington for Prisoner

Sentence: 3 May 2013

NOTES ON SENTENCING OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Laurence, you are to be sentenced in relation to 65 offences to which you have pleaded guilty. There is a slight discrepancy between the criminal records and the summaries of your offences. I am proceeding on the basis that you are to be
sentenced on:

R V LAURENCE HC WN CRI-2012-032-000812 [3 May 2013]

(1) 15 charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;1

(2) 20 charges of performing an indecent act with a boy under the age of

12;2

(3) seven charges of performing an indecent act on a boy aged between

12 and 16;3

(4) eight charges of producing an objectionable publication;4

(5) ten charges of distributing or supplying an objectionable publication;5

and

(6) five charges of possessing an objectionable publication.6

[2] In sentencing you I will explain: (1) your offending;
(2) the starting point for your sentence;

(3)the adjustments that need to be made to reflect the totality of your offending;

(4)the discount that I will give you for your guilty plea and factors that are personal to you; and

(5)the minimum period you must serve in prison before you can be considered for parole.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B.
2      Sections 140(1)(b) and 132(3).
3      Section 140A(1)(a).
4      Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, ss 123(1)(a) and 124(2)(a).
5      Sections 123(1)(d) and 124(2)(a).
6      Section 131A(1).

[3] From the outset I explain that while you were initially considered to be eligible for a sentence of preventive detention, I will not be imposing that sentence. The Crown quite properly appreciates that the reports prepared by health assessors under s 88 of the Sentencing Act 2002 do not establish to the requisite degree that you are likely to commit another qualifying offence once released from a finite
sentence of imprisonment.7

[4] There is therefore not sufficient information to enable me to sentence you to preventive detention.

Your offending

[5] In explaining your offending I emphasise for the benefit of the media that nothing can be published which identifies your victims. For these reasons not only are the names of the victims suppressed, but also the towns in which your offending occurred and your relationship with the victims. Your name, however, can be published.

[6] Your first victim, JA, was living [suppressed]. Your offending against him took place between 1999 and 2000 when he was aged between eight and ten years old. You befriended this victim and began to engage in sexual acts with him. You took photographs of your offending. This led 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 Laurence

Details

AGLC: R v Laurence [2013] NZHC 956
Case: [2013] NZHC 956
Decision Date: 3 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Laurence, the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, was tasked with sentencing the defendant, Arron Paul Laurence, on 65 charges of sexual violation, producing and distributing objectionable publications, and possessing objectionable publications. Laurence pleaded guilty to all charges, which included offences against children under the age of 12 and between 12 and 16, as well as offences related to the production and distribution of objectionable content. Laurence's offending spanned over a decade, involving multiple victims, and was marked by a high degree of premeditation, violation, and breach of trust. The court acknowledged Laurence's remorse and willingness to engage in treatment, but also noted his attempt to withdraw some guilty pleas, which influenced the sentencing discount.

The court established a starting point for Laurence's sentence based on the most serious charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, placing his offending in the lower end of band 4 of R v AM. This resulted in a provisional starting point of 16 years imprisonment. The court adjusted the starting point upwards by one year to account for the totality of Laurence's offending, particularly his possession and distribution of objectionable publications, leading to a provisional sentence of 17 years. After applying a 25% discount for Laurence's guilty pleas and demonstrated remorse, the court arrived at an end sentence of 12 years and nine months imprisonment. Additionally, the court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of six and a half years to ensure adequate accountability and deterrence. Laurence was also sentenced to three years imprisonment for each of the other charges, to run concurrently with the primary sentence. The court ordered the destruction of Laurence's electronic devices that contained the objectionable content.

Orders