R v Olliver - [2016] NZHC 2547

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-000810 [2016] NZHC 2547

THE QUEEN

v

THOMAS OLLIVER

Hearing: 25 October 2016

Counsel:

C J Boshier for the Crown
P J Shamy for the Defendant

Date:

25 October 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] Mr Olliver, on the 26 September this year, a jury found you guilty of three charges of doing an indecent act on a child under the age of 12. The charges were described by the Crown as an indecent assault but in each instance the offence, under s 132(3) of the Crimes Act 1961, was committed with you doing an indecent act.

[2] The first charge involved a young girl, “S”, who was then aged 8. During

2014, you were living in a caravan parked on a rural property where she lived in the main home with her mother. The girl came to your caravan. She was watching a movie with you on your bed. While doing that, you touched her on the upper thigh part of her body. You tried to put your hand down the front of her pants. You squeezed her buttocks. You touched her in the vaginal area but I am proceeding on the basis this was on top of her clothing. She said you tried to get into her clothes
but she rolled over.

R v OLLIVER [2016] NZHC 2547 [25 October 2016]

[3] When S was questioned by your lawyer, she said she went over to where you were staying a few times. She talked about some other physical contact she had with you, wriggling in what she said was referred to as the pretzel and that she would be involved in laughing and tickling. S remembered that as being something different from the actions which led to your being found guilty of doing an indecent act. She was not challenged over the particular touching which the charge was based on. The jury obviously found those actions to have been what right-thinking people in the community would regard as indecent and that you knew they were of that sort and not just innocent or accidental playful contact with a younger girl.

[4] You were also found guilty of doing an indecent act with “T”. She was aged

9. In about November 2014, you were living with her mother. You were there for about a month. She described lying on her mother’s bed with you, watching TV. She talked about you touching her in ways that made her feel awkward, rubbing your fingers along her abdominal area and down her back and squeezing her buttocks, running your hands through her hair, kissing her head and stuff like that and, at the same time as the touching on her bottom occurred, also of your trying to put your hand down her pants and of trying to lift the elastic bit on her pyjamas, but of your rolling away quickly when her mother came into the room.

[5] You were also found…

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 Olliver

Details

AGLC: R v Olliver [2016] NZHC 2547
Case: [2016] NZHC 2547
Decision Date: 25 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Olliver was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry, where Thomas Olliver was found guilty of three charges of doing an indecent act on a child under the age of 12. The charges were brought under Section 132(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Olliver, who had been found guilty of committing indecent acts on two separate occasions with two different girls under the age of 12. The court also needed to consider the implications of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 in light of Olliver's convictions.

In sentencing Olliver, the court focused on the nature and seriousness of the offending, the vulnerability of the victims, and the potential for harm. The court highlighted that Olliver's actions were not just innocent or accidental but were deliberate and inappropriate, making the victims feel uncomfortable and awkward. The court considered the lack of remorse shown by Olliver, his previous criminal history, and the high risk of reoffending. The court adopted a starting point of 16 months' imprisonment for the charges involving one victim and an uplift of four months due to previous criminal offending, resulting in a sentence of 20 months for each of these charges, to run concurrently. For the charge involving the other victim, the court imposed a sentence of nine months, cumulative on the other two charges. Thus, Olliver was sentenced to a total of two years and five months' imprisonment. The court also directed that Olliver be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register under the new Act, with corresponding reporting obligations for 15 years.

The court's decision underscores the gravity of Olliver's crimes, particularly given the vulnerability of the victims and the potential for lasting harm. The sentence reflects the need for accountability, denunciation, and deterrence while also considering the specific circumstances of the offending.

Orders