R v Ottley - [2016] NZHC 1324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-002479

CRI-2015-409-000132 [2016] NZHC 1324

THE QUEEN

v

RICKY JOHN OTTLEY

Hearing: 17 June 2016

Appearances:

A S Williams and N A Pointer for Crown
G Dixon for Prisoner

Judgment:

17 June 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Mr Ottley, as you know, you are appearing for sentencing today, having been found guilty by a jury in the High Court, first on 12 February, when you were convicted of:

(a) two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and

the maximum penalty for that is 20 years’; and

(b) one charge of male assaults female, where the maximum penalty is

two years’ imprisonment.

[2] Those charges relate to your first victim, A, a woman with whom you were in a relationship.

R v OTTLEY [2016] NZHC 1324 [17 June 2016]

[3] You are also, of course, appearing for sentencing, having been found guilty by a jury in the High Court in Christchurch on 19 February 2016 and then convicted on:

(a) two charges of sexual violation by rape, where the maximum penalty

is 20 years’ imprisonment;

(b)two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, where the maximum penalty is 20 years;

(c) one charge of kidnapping, where the maximum penalty is 14 years;

(d)two charges of threatening to kill, where the maximum penalty is seven years; and

(e) one charge of male assaults female, where the maximum penalty is

two years’ imprisonment.1

[4] Those charges relate to your second victim; B, again someone with whom you were in a relationship with.

[5] So I will now set out in brief the factual basis of the offending for which you are being sentenced.

[6] The first three convictions are for offences which occurred in the context of the relationship you had with Ms A between February 2014 and December 2014. She lives in Mosgiel and you would travel down and stay with her approximately every fortnight. The relationship started well and you told the victim that you were going to marry her. However, your behaviour changed as the relationship progressed. The male assaults female charge arose sometime between April and July 2014 when your victim became suspicious, correctly as it turns out, that you
were seeing someone else and you were always on the phone. An argument resulted

1 I erroneously said one charge of male assaults female when, in fact it was four and I omitted to refer to the charges of perverting the course of justice and assault with a weapon.

when you picked up her phone, smashed it on the ground and when she went to pick it up you slapped her around the head and she described it as “bombing” her ear.

[7] The next charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection occurred during September of that year. Ms A and you had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. You then repeatedly tried to roll her onto her stomach in order to have anal intercourse…

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 Ottley

Details

AGLC: R v Ottley [2016] NZHC 1324
Case: [2016] NZHC 1324
Decision Date: 17 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ricky John Ottley was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences and violence-related charges against two victims, A and B, who were in relationships with him. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch, where Justice Dunningham delivered the judgment. The central legal issues involved determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, balancing the purposes of sentencing, and deciding whether to impose a preventive detention order.

The court considered various aggravating factors, including the defendant's breach of trust, high levels of violence, and the impact on the victims. The court also noted that the defendant was on parole for similar offences when these crimes were committed. Mitigating factors were minimal, as the defendant denied most of the charges and showed no remorse. The court set a starting point for the sexual offences at the upper end of Band 3 or the bottom of Band 4, resulting in a sentence of around 16 years' imprisonment, which was then uplifted to account for other violent charges and the defendant's criminal history. An additional sentence was imposed for the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

After considering the criteria for preventive detention, the court concluded that while the defendant met the requirements, the lengthy determinate sentence, combined with the defendant's age and potential for risk management post-release, provided adequate protection for society. Therefore, the court opted not to impose preventive detention. The final sentence comprised 20 years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of 10 years, to be served for the charges related to the two victims.

The court's judgment carefully weighed the need for accountability, deterrence, and community protection against the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding that a lengthy determinate sentence was sufficient to manage the risk posed by the defendant.

Orders