R v Meyer - [2013] NZHC 3500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-002307 [2013] NZHC 3500

REGINA

v

GORDON STANLEY MEYER

Hearing: 19 December 2013

Counsel:

P A Currie for the Crown
JHM Eaton QC for Mr Meyer

Judgment:

19 December 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] You are for sentence this morning on two charges, the first an indecent assault committed in April 2011, the second a charge that being a police officer you corruptly agreed to accept a bribe, being an offer of sexual gratification in return for not continuing to process an excess breath alcohol offence.

[2] These are serious crimes as reflected in the maximum penalty prescribed for them of seven years imprisonment.

The indecent assault

[3] The indecent assault, count eight in the indictment, occurred as I have said as a result of events in early 2011. You encountered the complainant in the course of your duties. She was only 18 at the time. The indecent assault occurred sometime in
the course of April that year. The complainant was at a bar in Hornby. You were on

R v MEYER [2013] NZHC 3500 [19 December 2013]

duty in a patrol car. A friend of hers asked you to give the complainant a lift to another bar in Riccarton. You agreed to do so. En route you turned into Maxwell Street, stopped the vehicle and parked. She said “what are you doing?” You said “look”, looking towards your groin area and then grabbed her hand and placed it on your crutch. She pulled her hand away, you then made reference to her bra, reached over and felt her breast under her bra and added the comment “I want to suck your breasts”. The complainant pushed your hand away. You endeavoured to place it back on yourself again. She protested, saying “no, no”. And at that point this encounter ended, having lasted 30 seconds or so.

[4] Mr Meyer this was very plainly an indecent assault. The complainant did not consent in any way to your actions. She tolerated, or perhaps more accurately did not formally complain, because of your position. She had trusted you because you were a police officer. This shines through from a reading of her victim impact statement – have you read those statements from the two complainants? (nods) This complainant said this:

I would not have got in the car if Gordi was not a police man driving a police car. I felt safe getting in the car and never expected it to have this ending. If he had been some random older man I would have never got in the car and I know people would have questioned me if I did. Gordi was a police man, someone who everyone expects you can trust, someone who is supposed to protect people, but in fact he turned out to be a predator.

If he wasn’t a police man things would have never got as far as they did. He would have just been…

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 Meyer

Details

AGLC: R v Meyer [2013] NZHC 3500
Case: [2013] NZHC 3500
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Gordon Stanley Meyer involved a former police officer convicted of indecent assault and corrupt acceptance of a bribe. The defendant, Meyer, was sentenced by Panckhurst J on December 19, 2013, in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. Meyer had been found guilty of indecently assaulting a young woman in April 2011 and of corruptly agreeing to accept a bribe, specifically an offer of sexual gratification, in return for not continuing to process an excess breath alcohol offence in September 2011. Both charges were serious, with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering personal mitigating factors, and deciding on the least restrictive sentence that was appropriate. The court had to weigh the breach of trust by Meyer, his abuse of the victims' vulnerability, and the gravity of the offences against the mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, previous good character, and the fall from grace he had suffered. The court also needed to consider the appropriate sentence that would achieve the purposes of holding the offender accountable, denouncing the conduct, and deterring any repeat of such acts.

Panckhurst J began by highlighting the gravity of Meyer's offences, particularly the breach of trust as a police officer. The court noted the aggravating features of the corruption charge and the impact on the victims, who felt a profound sense of betrayal. The judge commended the thorough investigation by the police. After considering the relevant sentencing principles and the comparable case of Connolly, the court determined a starting point of three years imprisonment. The mitigating factors, including Meyer's late guilty pleas, his previous good character, and the significant fall from grace he had experienced, led the court to reduce the sentence to 18 months imprisonment. However, due to the mitigating circumstances and Meyer's suitability for home detention, the court sentenced him to nine months home detention on each charge, to be served concurrently, along with special conditions and emotional harm payments to the victims.

In summary, the court's sentencing remarks and final orders reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors, while ensuring that the sentence achieved the purposes of accountability, denunciation, and deterrence.

Orders