NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT
PURSUANT TO S 286 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
https://
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2023-044-3981
[2025] NZHC 3631
THE KING
v
M
Hearing:
26 November 2025
Appearances:
M W Nathan for Crown
P K Hamlin and D J DeGallais for defendant
Date of sentence:
26 November 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J
Counsel/Solicitors:
P K Hamlin, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland
R v M [2025] NZHC 3631 [26 November 2025]
[1] M, I’m going to address you now. At the end of my address to you, I will ask you to stand. At the moment I ask just that you listen.
[2] You have pleaded guilty to a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection,1 and to a charge of sexual conduct by doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years of age.2 Your offending occurred between September 2021 and September 2023: the former against a girl then aged between five and seven years old; the latter against a girl then aged between eight and 10 years old.
[3] As a sentence of preventive detention might be appropriate, you have come to me in this Court to sentence you for that offending.3 In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your pleaded guilt.4 I also may accept as proved any facts agreed on between you and the Crown.5 Those are specified in the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty, which I will outline shortly.
[4] I have read and listened to all that the lawyers have had to say, both for you and for the Crown. As you will have known, the Crown proposes a starting point of seven-and-a-half to eight years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. Your counsel, Philip Hamlin, similarly proposes a six-and- a-half to seven-year starting point, acknowledging the likelihood of a minimum period of imprisonment, with an end sentence, he suggests, of six to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
[5] Alternatively at issue is if you should be sentenced to preventive detention, to protect the community from you if you pose a significant and ongoing risk to its members’ safety.6 That will require me to be satisfied you are likely to commit another serious sexual offence if released on your sentence’s expiry date,7 and then to take into
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B. Maximum penalty: 20 years’ imprisonment. Given the ‘unlawful’ aspect of the charge is the absence of consent, the charge could—and, given s 132(5) which provides a child’s consent is no defence, arguably should—have been brought under s 132(1), which renders anyone who has sexual connection with a child liable to imprisonment for a term not…
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 M
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v M [2025] NZHC 3631
Case
[2025] NZHC 3631
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
M was convicted of multiple sexual offences against young girls, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and indecent acts on a child under 12 years of age. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, including the victims' impact, the offender's abuse of trust, and the offender's criminal history of similar offences. The court determined a starting point for the sentence, taking into account the severity of the crimes and the offender's culpability. M's guilty pleas resulted in a 10% credit on the starting point, while no credit was given for his deprived background. The final sentence was nine years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of five years before parole eligibility. The court also considered preventive detention as an alternative sentence to protect the community from M's significant and ongoing risk of reoffending. The health assessors' reports indicated that M was likely to reoffend if released on a determinate sentence, and that he would present a risk into his 70s and beyond. The court concluded that preventive detention was the appropriate sentence for M, as a lengthy determinate sentence with extended supervision conditions would not provide adequate protection for society.
The final orders of the court were that M be sentenced to preventive detention on his convictions, with a minimum period of five years before parole eligibility.