R v Nicholls - [2020] NZHC 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2019-054-1112

[2020] NZHC 824

THE QUEEN

v

PAUL PAORA KARAKA TEAHO NICHOLLS

Hearing: 28 April 2020 (by VMR)

Counsel:

M G Wilkinson for Crown E C Killeen for Defendant

Sentencing:

28 April 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Nicholls, I am sure you understand that there are a lot of things I need to say in the course of sentencing you today, so I do apologise; this is going to be quite long. That is partly because the Crown is asking me to sentence you to preventive detention, and that requires me to consider a whole lot of things that I need to talk about. This will not be a sentencing of the kind that you received in 2008 when Judge Roberts dealt with the matter very quickly, so just bear with me. I do hope you will listen to what I say, though.

[2]Mr Nicholls, you appear for sentence in relation to the following charges:

R v NICHOLLS [2020] NZHC 824 [28 April 2020]

(a)two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection—for which the maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)one charge of indecent assault—for which the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment;2

(c)two charges of burglary—for which the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment;3 and

(d)two charges of dishonestly using a document—for which the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.4

[3] You pleaded guilty to and were convicted of all charges at an early stage and you received a first strike warning in the District Court. But because a sentence of preventive detention was raised as a possibility, your case was referred to this Court for sentencing.

[4] So the main issue for me to decide today is whether I should sentence you to preventive detention, as the Crown asks me to do. Before I get to that point, though, there are quite a lot of things I need to talk about. I start with the facts of your offending, which you accept.

The offending

[5] The victim of all your offending on this occasion is an older woman who lives alone. The lock on her front door was broken. During the evening of 13-14 April 2019 you entered her home while she was sleeping. You stole her handbag which contained various items valued at $755.

[6] Then you went to a nearby service station and made a total of eight transactions using the victim’s bank card. The transactions had a combined value of $279.68.

1      Section 128(1(b) & 128B of the Crimes Act 1961.
2      section 135 of the Crimes Act 1961.
3      Section 231(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
4      Section 228(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.

Next, you went to a supermarket and made four more transactions with the bank card, totalling $150.93.

[7] About a week later you returned to the victim’s house, again while she was sleeping. The lock was still…

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 Nicholls

Details

AGLC: R v Nicholls [2020] NZHC 824
Case: [2020] NZHC 824
Decision Date: 28 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Paul Paora Karaka Teaho Nicholls was sentenced for multiple charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, indecent assault, burglary, and dishonestly using a document. The court, presided over by Justice Ellis, had to decide on the appropriate sentence, with the Crown advocating for preventive detention. The court began by analyzing the nature and severity of the offenses, which involved a vulnerable elderly victim, home invasion, and sexual violation. The victim's significant physical and emotional harm was also considered. Nicholls' personal background, including a troubled childhood, extensive criminal history, and recent efforts to address his substance abuse and cultural disconnection, were reviewed. The court calculated a starting point of 10 years' imprisonment, adjusted for various factors such as Nicholls' guilty pleas and remorse, resulting in a proposed sentence of eight and a half years. The court then assessed whether preventive detention was warranted, considering Nicholls' pattern of serious offending, the risk he posed to the community, his efforts to address the causes of his offending, and whether a lengthy determinate sentence would provide adequate protection. Ultimately, the court decided that an eight and a half year sentence, with a minimum prison term of five and a half years, along with the possibility of an Extended Supervision Order post-release, would be sufficient to protect society. The court emphasized the importance of cultural reconnection and further treatment options for Nicholls. The final sentence imposed was eight and a half years' imprisonment, to run concurrently, with a minimum non-parole period of five and a half years.

Orders