1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(b) and 128B. Maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 132(3). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, s 124(1). Maximum penalty is 14 years’
imprisonment.
4      Section 131A(1). Maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment/$50,000 fine.

R v MCGREGOR [2017] NZHC 2150 [6 September 2017]

[2] The victim was a four year old female. I acknowledge her family members who are present at court this morning and who have suffered an enormous amount as a result of your offending.

[3] Mr McGregor, I state from the outset that I will be imposing a very long sentence of imprisonment. I will however not be imposing a sentence of preventive detention. I shall explain why I am not imposing a sentence of preventive detention during the course of my sentencing remarks. In sentencing you I shall:

(1) outline your offending;

(2) explain the victim impact statements;

(3)describe your personal circumstances and the relevant background reports;

(4) explain why I have decided not to impose preventive detention; (5) set out the sentence starting point for your offending;
(6) make adjustments to that starting point;

(7) explain why I am imposing a minimum period of imprisonment; and

(8) explain your final sentence.

Summary of facts

Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

[4] On 21 October 2016, you and the victim were alone together. You pulled your penis out exposing it to the victim and then attempted to put it in her mouth several times. Your penis touched her lips. She managed to pull away each time.

[5] You then lured the victim to another secluded area behind an abandoned building. You pulled the victim’s tights and underwear down and rubbed your fingers around her genitalia.

Indecently assaulting a child under 12

[6] You got the victim to masturbate you before you laid her down on the ground and rubbed your penis over her bottom and vagina area. You then ejaculated over her stomach and vagina.

Knowingly making an objectionable publication

[7] You took eight photographs of the victim that revealed your offending. You also made a video recording you sexually violating her. After your offending, you took the victim back to her parents. You told her not to tell anybody about what had happened.

[8] She disclosed to her father the offending that evening and he notified the police. You were located at your home address and interviewed at the police station. You admitted to the…

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 McGregor

Details

AGLC: R v McGregor [2017] NZHC 2150
Case: [2017] NZHC 2150
Decision Date: 6 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen versus Kyle Edward McGregor was heard and decided on September 6, 2017. Mr. McGregor was convicted on multiple charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, indecently assaulting a child under 12, and knowingly making and possessing objectionable publications. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing for these serious crimes, and whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed. The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offenses, the risk of reoffending, and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age and potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that while Mr. McGregor's offenses were extremely serious and had caused significant harm to the victim and her family, a sentence of preventive detention was not warranted. Instead, the court determined that a lengthy determinate sentence would provide adequate protection for society and allow for the possibility of rehabilitation. The starting point for the sexual offenses was set at nine years' imprisonment, with an additional uplift for the possession of objectionable publications. After making adjustments for factors such as the totality of the offenses, the defendant's youth, and his guilty plea, the final sentence imposed was six years and four months' imprisonment for the sexual offenses, five years for the indecent assault charges, and nine months for the objectionable publications charges. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The court also lifted an interim name suppression order, as there was no longer a need to protect the identity of the victim.

Orders