R v Linton - [2014] NZHC 2111

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S
203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-013358 [2014] NZHC 2111

THE QUEEN

v

PETER JAMES LINTON

Counsel:
B D Vanderkolk and E M FitzHerbert for Crown

M J Callaghan and L M Drummond for Prisoner

Sentence:

4 September 2014

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Linton, you appear for sentence in relation to 28 charges. Those charges fall into three categories:

(1)Six charges of performing an indecent act or assault on a boy aged under 12.1 Your victims were 11 years old at the time of your offending;

(2)Nine charges of performing an indecent act on a boy aged between 12 and 16 or inducing your victims to perform an indecent act;2 and

(3) Thirteen charges of sexual conduct with a young person under 16.3

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 140(1). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 140A(1)(b) and (c). Maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

R v LINTON [2014] NZHC 2111 [4 September 2014]

[2] Your offending involves five victims and spans from 11 December 2000 to

28 January 2009. Fifteen of the charges are representative charges.

[3] The crucial question I have had to carefully reflect upon is whether I should sentence you to preventive detention or a long finite period of imprisonment.

[4] I have decided, by the narrowest of margins, to sentence you to a long finite period of imprisonment.

[5] In sentencing you I shall:

(1)describe your offending and the impact of your offending on the victims;

(2) examine your previous offending;

(3) review your personal circumstances;

(4) explain why I am not imposing preventive detention; (5) explain the starting point to your sentence;
(6) explain the adjustments that I am making to that starting point to

reflect:

the totality of your offending;
your prior offending; and your guilty plea.

(7) set out the minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve; and

(8) explain your final sentence.

3 Section 134(3). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

Your offending and its impact on your victims

[6] Your first four victims are part of a wider family group. You befriended their parents, gained their trust and confidence and ingratiated yourself into their lives. You also, later in your cycle of offending, befriended the fifth victim’s mother.

[7] You babysat your first four victims and employed all of your victims to do manual work.

[8] Over a two year period you engaged in indecent touching, mutual masturbation and oral sex with your first victim who was 14 and 15 years old at that time.

[9] Over a five year period you engaged in multiple acts of indecent assault, mutual masturbation and oral sex on your second victim who was aged 11 when your offending against him commenced. Thirteen of the charges relate to your second victim.

[10] One of the charges relates to your third victim but…

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 Linton

Details

AGLC: R v Linton [2014] NZHC 2111
Case: [2014] NZHC 2111
Decision Date: 4 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Peter James Linton dealt with a comprehensive set of charges against the defendant, spanning multiple instances of sexual offences against minors. The charges were categorised into three groups: six counts of performing indecent acts or assaults on boys under 12, nine counts of performing indecent acts on boys aged between 12 and 16 or inducing them to perform indecent acts, and thirteen counts of sexual conduct with a young person under 16. The court had to decide whether to impose preventive detention or a long finite period of imprisonment on the defendant, Peter James Linton.

The court examined the nature and impact of Linton's offences, which involved five victims over a period of eight years. The offences included extensive grooming, indecent touching, mutual masturbation, and oral sex. The court also reviewed Linton's previous convictions for similar offences, which occurred over two periods in the 1990s. Additionally, the court considered Linton's personal circumstances, including his age and health conditions, which were factors against imposing preventive detention. The court balanced these factors against the serious nature of the current offences, the risk of reoffending, and the need to protect the community.

Ultimately, the court decided to sentence Linton to a long finite period of imprisonment, setting a starting point of five and a half years. This was adjusted upwards to account for the totality of the offences, the number of victims, and Linton's previous convictions, resulting in a total of nine years before any reductions for mitigating factors. The court granted a discount of 12 months for Linton's guilty plea, leading to a final sentence of eight years for the most serious charges and five years for the others, all to be served concurrently. However, Linton must serve a minimum of four years before being eligible for parole.

Orders