R v Lepper - [2014] NZHC 3015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2013-012-002954 [2014] NZHC 3015

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH WARREN LEPPER

Hearing: 28 November 2014

Appearances:

R P Bates for Crown
L A Andersen for Defendant

Judgment:

28 November 2014

SENTENCNG REMARKS OF GENDALL J

R v LEPPER [2014] NZHC 3015 [28 November 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lepper, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of abduction with intent to commit unlawful sexual connection. That sentence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Summary of Facts

[2] At approximately 9.30 pm on 19 October 2013, the victim, a young 23 year old woman, was walking alone on Vogel Street in Dunedin to meet her parents for dinner nearby. Vogel Street is in an old industrial area of the central business district and it is poorly lit. There were no other pedestrians or vehicles in the area.

[3] You, Mr Lepper, drove along Vogel Street in your van with your co-offender, Mr McVeigh, who was just 17 years of age at the time. He sat next to you in the front passenger street. That evening you had decided to abduct and sexually violate a female and you drove slowly past the victim who was a total stranger to you and scanned her as a potential target. When you were 20 metres past the victim, Mr Lepper, you angle-parked on the same side of the street as her. Both of you got out of the van and stood on the footpath as the victim walked in your direction. As she walked past, both you, Mr Lepper, and Mr McVeigh set upon her. You grabbed her and endeavoured to physically restrain her and bundle her into your van while Mr McVeigh opened the sliding door of the van. The victim struggled violently, screamed, and physically resisted as you tried to take her towards the van. Her resistance was such that you were unable to get her inside, despite dragging her to the van in part by her hair and nearby residents were alerted and ran to her aid. Upon realising this, you, Mr Lepper, and your co-offender, Mr McVeigh, abandoned the victim, got back into the van and fled the scene. The whole incident took some time.

[4] The victim was understandably extremely distraught and badly shaken. She suffered a sore back, numerous bruises and scrapes, the loss of handfuls of hair, a sore head and scratches to her neck. You, Mr Lepper, and Mr McVeigh were arrested the following morning. You denied the offending and claimed that you had been intoxicated and asleep outside a building in St Kilda at the time of the attack. When

you were shown CCTV footage of the offence, you declined to make further comment.

[5] Mr McVeigh, your co-offender, admitted the facts of the offending and claimed that he complied with the offending because that was what you, Mr Lepper, an older 37 year old man at the time, wanted. He admitted that…

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 Lepper

Details

AGLC: R v Lepper [2014] NZHC 3015
Case: [2014] NZHC 3015
Decision Date: 28 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Joseph Warren Lepper (CRI-2013-012-002954 [2014] NZHC 3015) saw the defendant pleading guilty to a charge of abduction with intent to commit unlawful sexual connection. The maximum penalty for this crime is 14 years imprisonment. Lepper, along with his co-offender, had abducted a young woman who was walking alone in an industrial area of Dunedin. The victim resisted violently, and the attack was interrupted by nearby residents, causing Lepper and his accomplice to flee the scene. Lepper and his co-offender were arrested the following morning. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed on Lepper should be a finite term of imprisonment or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. In considering this, the court examined the nature and seriousness of the offence, Lepper's personal circumstances and criminal history, and the risk he posed to the community if released.

The court determined that a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community from the risk of Lepper reoffending. Lepper had a history of serious sexual and violent offending, and there was evidence to suggest he was at high risk of reoffending in the future. Furthermore, Lepper had shown a lack of empathy, a normalisation of violence, and poor insight into the consequences of his actions. Given these factors, the court concluded that preventive detention was the appropriate sentence to protect the community from the risk posed by Lepper. As a result, Lepper was sentenced to preventive detention, with a minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

Orders