R v Lochore - [2018] NZHC 2693

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: SEE PARAGRAPHS [9], [17], [21], [23], [25], [26] and [38].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI 2017-085-771

[2018] NZHC 2693

THE QUEEN

v

DOMINIC JABEZ LOCHORE

Hearing: 17 October 2018

Appearances:

G J Burston for the Crown

I M Antunovic for Mr Lochore

Sentencing:

17 October 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Lochore, there is a bit to go through when a sentence of preventive detention is sought so you can remain seated for now. I can confirm that having listened to the submissions, I have decided not to impose preventive detention. I am going to go with the finite sentence option. I’ve considered it very carefully and listened to the risk factors that are present and as conveyed and summarised by the Crown this morning, but have concluded that it is not appropriate for reasons which I am now going to explain in detail.

R v LOCHORE [2018] NZHC 2693 [17 October 2018]

[2] You appear for sentencing on a representative charge of doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years of age.1

[3] You were convicted in the District Court on this charge having pleaded guilty to it. You were given a first strike warning. The District Court transferred your sentencing to this Court so that a sentence of preventive detention could be considered.2

The offending

[4] The victim, who will be referred to as L, was an eight year old girl. You shared a house with her father, and L and her sister stayed there each fortnight. L came to be familiar with you through these visits. During one such visit, on the morning of Saturday 20 August 2016, you asked L and her sister if they would like to lie in bed with you and watch television. Your bed was on the couch in the living room. They agreed. There was not enough space on the couch for all three of you to lie comfortably so they took turns every ad break to lie with you.

[5] When it was L’s turn, she lay down in front of you under the blanket. You wrapped your arm around her and put your hand inside the front of her pyjamas and underwear and stroked your fingers up and down her vagina for several minutes until she said she wanted to go to the toilet. When L returned, her sister was in the bed. When the next ad break occurred, L accepted another turn and you again put your hand inside her pants and underwear and rubbed her vagina, this time for a shorter period as L got up to get ready for her Saturday morning activities.

Impact of your offending

[6] It is beyond doubt that sexual offending on young victims causes long term harm to them. I have read the victim…

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 Lochore

Details

AGLC: R v Lochore [2018] NZHC 2693
Case: [2018] NZHC 2693
Decision Date: 17 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dominic Jabez Lochore was sentenced by Mallon J in the High Court of New Zealand for committing an indecent act on a child under 12 years of age. The court was tasked with determining whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention or a finite sentence, considering the risk factors and the potential for rehabilitation. The legal issues included the appropriateness of preventive detention, the consideration of the offender's past sexual offending, his expressed willingness to engage in treatment, and the potential for reducing his risk of reoffending. The court concluded that preventive detention was not necessary, given the limited history of sexual offending, its nature at the lower end of the scale for sexual offending, and the potential avenues for reducing the risk of sexual offending. Mallon J opted for a finite sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of two thirds of that sentence. The court also recommended the Department of Corrections consider making an application for an extended supervision order upon the offender's release.

The court's reasoning was based on the offender's limited history of sexual offending, the nature of the current offence being at the lower end of the scale for sexual offending, and the potential avenues for reducing the risk of sexual offending. The court found that while the offender was a high risk of committing sexual offending in the future, treatment options were available that could assist in addressing this. The court also considered the offender's expressed willingness to engage in treatment and his sense of shame for his offending, indicating a desire to do so. The court concluded that it was premature and disproportionate to sentence the offender to preventive detention at this stage.

Orders