R v McVeigh - [2014] NZHC 1936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2013-012-3015 [2014] NZHC 1936

THE QUEEN

v

ZANE ALEXANDER McVEIGH

Hearing: 15 August 2014

Appearances:

R P Bates for Crown
A Stevens for Defendant

Sentence:

15 August 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v McVEIGH [2014] NZHC 1936 [15 August 2014]

[1] Mr McVeigh, 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.

Background

[2] The charge to which you have pleaded guilty arose as a result of an incident that occurred in Central Dunedin on the evening of 19 October 2013. At about 9.30 pm that evening the complainant was walking along Vogel Street in the Central City. That is a side street that is not particularly well lit. As she walked down the street on the footpath, a van cruised up beside her and then parked in front of her. Two men got out of the van, one of whom was you.

[3] The two men then set upon the complainant. You were one of the men and you had already opened the side door of the panel van. I viewed a video tape of the incident taken from a camera in the area. That shows quite a lengthy incident in which both you and your co-offender, Mr Lepper, endeavoured to physically restrain the complainant and then to bundle her into the van in which you arrived at the scene. As I have said, the incident went on for some time. It was only the tenacity and bravery of the complainant that prevented you and your co-offender from trapping her and placing her in the van.

[4] Eventually, however, she was able to struggle to the extent that the attention of passersby was attracted. They came to the scene and you and your co-offender then departed from the scene. As I have said, the whole incident was captured on video tape and that demonstrates something about the determination with which you and your co-offender went about your task that night. As I have said, it is a testament to the bravery and tenacity of the complainant that she was able to fight you off until help arrived.

Sentencing Act 2002

[5] Obviously in any case of offending as serious as this, the Court needs to take into account principles of denunciation and the need to hold the offenders accountable. The Court must also impose a sentence that deters any others who may

think like you from committing similar acts in the future. Having said that, the courts are also required to impose sentences that are the least restrictive outcome in the circumstances and that are broadly consistent with other similar cases.

[6] One of the factors the Court is required to take into account is the effect that the offending has had on the victim. I have had the benefit of a lengthy, yet moderate and very…

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 McVeigh

Details

AGLC: R v McVeigh [2014] NZHC 1936
Case: [2014] NZHC 1936
Decision Date: 15 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Zane Alexander McVeigh was sentenced for a charge of abduction with intent to commit unlawful sexual connection. The incident occurred in Central Dunedin on 19 October 2013, where McVeigh, along with his co-offender, attempted to abduct a woman in a poorly lit street. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that considered the principles of denunciation, accountability, deterrence, and the impact on the victim. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at a suitable sentence.

The court began by acknowledging the severity of the offence and the impact it had on the victim, who exhibited bravery and tenacity to escape the abduction. The court recognised the importance of imposing a sentence that deterred similar acts in the future, while also being consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The starting point for the sentence was determined to be four and a half years imprisonment, taking into account McVeigh's role in the offence and his lack of sexual intent. The court considered various mitigating factors, including McVeigh's guilty plea, his offer to assist in the prosecution of his co-offender, and his expression of remorse. Ultimately, the court decided to impose a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment, along with an emotional harm payment to the victim.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Zane Alexander McVeigh to two years and eight months imprisonment for his involvement in the abduction with intent to commit unlawful sexual connection. The court also directed McVeigh to make an emotional harm payment of $1000 to the victim.

Orders