R v Neil - [2014] NZHC 2378

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-004-1892 [2014] NZHC 2378

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL CHRISTOPHER KEITH NEIL

Charge:
Plea:

Doing an indecent act on a child;

Breach of parole conditions (2)

Guilty

Counsel:

RMA McCoubrey and N Copeland for Crown
E Priest and LL Hughes for Prisoner

Sentenced:

30 September 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Public Defence Service (Auckland) for Prisoner

R v NEIL [2014] NZHC 2378 [30 September 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Neil, you appear for sentence on one charge of doing an indecent act on a child aged five years and two charges of breaching your parole conditions. The maximum penalty for the indecent act charge is 10 years’ imprisonment. For the charges of breaching parole, the maximum penalty is one year imprisonment. You pleaded guilty to the indecent act charge on 24 March 2014 and to the charges of breaching parole three weeks earlier.

[2] You are in this Court for sentence because a sentence of preventive detention is possible.

Background

[3] You are already subject to a sentence of preventive detention. You spent

14 years in prison on that sentence, and you were released with conditions on

22 March 2010. On 1 March 2014, four years after your release into the community, you went to the Parnell Swimming Baths. This was a breach of your release conditions. Once at the baths, you changed into your swimming gear and went to the pool area. After a while you moved to the children’s pool area and sat in the fountain pool. You sat under and behind the pool’s waterfall, watched the children playing in the pool and chatted with them.

[4] According to your account, you became sexually aroused by looking at teenage girls. You noticed the victim, a five year old boy, had become separated from his family and was alone in the pool. You reached out to the victim, who apparently climbed over you as you sat in the pool, and grabbed his hand, placing it on your exposed and erect penis. The victim pulled away from your hand and ran to his father and told him what you had done. The victim’s father alerted pool staff who called the Police.

Victim impact statement

[5] There is a victim impact statement from the victim’s father. He says that,

thankfully, it does not appear the victim has suffered significant and ongoing

emotional harm. The father states that the biggest cost is the impact on him as a parent and his parenting of his children. He is more aware of the danger presented by strangers and has responded accordingly. In other words, an innocence has been lost.

Previous conviction history

[6] You are 45 years old and have a moderately extensive criminal conviction history. You have 31 previous convictions dating back to 1986 when you were
18…

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 Neil

Details

AGLC: R v Neil [2014] NZHC 2378
Case: [2014] NZHC 2378
Decision Date: 30 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Paul Christopher Keith Neil involved the defendant, who faced charges of doing an indecent act on a child and breaching parole conditions. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing for Neil, considering the maximum penalties for these offenses and his history of previous convictions. The legal issues included determining the appropriate sentence for the indecent act charge, the impact of his previous offenses, and whether a sentence of preventive detention was warranted. The court also considered the victim impact statement and Neil's history of sexual offenses.

The court, Brewer J, took into account Neil's previous criminal history, his participation in treatment programs while in prison, and his behavior while on parole. Despite his compliance with parole conditions for four years, the court found that Neil posed a high risk of reoffending. The court decided against imposing a second sentence of preventive detention, noting that Neil was already subject to such a sentence and that a lengthy determinate sentence would provide adequate protection for society. The court sentenced Neil to two years and two months’ imprisonment for the indecent act charge, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 months, and six months’ imprisonment for each charge of breaching parole conditions, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court included the sentences for the indecent act and parole breaches, emphasizing the importance of community protection and accountability in light of Neil's extensive criminal history and high risk of reoffending.

Orders