R v Morris aka Phipps - [2020] NZHC 1662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-005593

[2020] NZHC 1662

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES MORRIS (aka IAN CHARLES PHIPPS)

Hearing: 10 July 2020

Counsel:

T Cooper and A Al-Janabi for Crown

JM Hudson and DGA Reece for Defendant

Judgment:

10 July 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. JM Hudson, Auckland.
DGA Reece, Auckland.

R v MORRIS (aka PHIPPS) [2020] NZHC 1662 [10 July 2020]

Introduction

[1] Mr Morris, you were found guilty by a jury in the District Court of sexual offending against five victims. It is common ground I must impose a substantial term of imprisonment. In issue is preventive detention. Preventive detention is an indefinite sentence. Your case was transferred from the District Court as the Crown contends preventive detention should be imposed. Your lawyers, Mr Hudson and Mr Reece, argue a long, finite prison sentence is adequate to protect the public.

[2] You have been here before. In 1997, Speight J sentenced you to preventive detention. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and substituted a six-year term of imprisonment. More about this soon.

The charges

[3]You were found guilty of 14 charges:

(a)Six of indecency between a man and boy.1

(b)Six charges of indecency with a boy aged between 12 and 16 years.2

(c)Two charges of indecent assault on a child.3

The facts

[4] You committed these offences between 1977 and 2017. Most of your offending is historical, but not all.

[5] Between 1977 and 1979 you were employed as a projectionist at a cinema. You were an assistant scout leader of Mt Albert St Jude’s Scout Group. You were also involved with the Northcross Scout Movement. Your victims in this period I call L and T to protect their identity. These remarks will be transcribed and available to the public.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 140(1)(a) and (c). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 140A(1)(a). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 132(2). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

[6] L attended the first scout group. You befriended him. You drove him home some evenings. When L was 11 or 12, you took him to the cinema. You unzipped L’s shorts and removed his penis. You masturbated L until he ejaculated. You then drove him home. You did this to L on another evening, again at the cinema.

[7] You met T through the second scout group. You drove him home after scouts one evening when he was 11, 12 or perhaps 13. You stopped on the way. You kissed T. You fondled his genitals and allowed him to do the same to you. You then placed T’s penis in your mouth. You encouraged or permitted T to perform oral sex on you.

[8] You committed other sexual offences against T, all at the cinema. You caressed him, fondled his penis, and performed oral sex on him. You encouraged…

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 Morris aka Phipps

Details

AGLC: R v Morris aka Phipps [2020] NZHC 1662
Case: [2020] NZHC 1662
Decision Date: 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Morris (also known as Ian Charles Phipps) was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of multiple counts of sexual offending against five victims. The case was transferred to the High Court for sentencing, with the Crown arguing for preventive detention while the defence argued for a long, finite prison sentence. The court found that Morris had been committing sexual offences against children and young people for much of his adult life, spanning four decades. The court held that Morris's risk of re-offending was high, and that a finite sentence would not provide adequate community protection. The court imposed a sentence of preventive detention, with a minimum period of five years to be served before any possibility of release.

The court considered the totality of Morris's offending and its aggravating features, including the number of victims, the breach of trust, and the premeditated and cynical nature of the offending. The court also considered the harm caused to the victims, who had suffered significant psychological harm as a result of the offending. The court noted that Morris had a history of sexual offending and had been convicted of similar offences in the past. The court found that Morris continued to pose a risk of re-offending despite his age and that his engagement with treatment had not prevented the 2017 offending against one of the victims. The court held that preventive detention was necessary to protect the public and that no other sentence would be adequate.

Orders