R v Page - [2016] NZHC 2762

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-2015-044-3928

[2016] NZHC 2762

THE QUEEN

v

RICHARD PAGE

Hearing: 18 November 2016

Appearances:

N Webby for the Crown

L B Cordwell for the Defendant

Sentence:

18 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF EDWARDS J

R v PAGE [2016] NZHC 2762 [18 November 2016]

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Auckland Counsel: L Cordwell, Auckland

Introduction

[1] Mr Page, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to six charges of sexual conduct with a young person under the age of 16 years. Four of those charges are for sexual connection;1 and two of them are for doing an indecent act.2 The maximum penalty for the sexual connection charges is 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the indecent act charges is seven years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[2]I turn now to the offending which led to these charges.

[3] You befriended the victim (whom I shall refer to as “A”) when he was approximately 10 years old. He was in a vulnerable position as his father passed away when he was young. He was drinking alcohol, having relationship issues with his mother, and not performing at school.

[4] A would visit you at the DVD store where you were working. You would allow him to hire DVDs and Playstation games for free; purchased him cigarettes and provided him with money to purchase alcohol. In essence, you groomed him over a period of four to five years.

[5] The first sexual offending happened when A was 12 years old. You watched pornography together and you suggested to him that he masturbate while watching. A week or two later, when you were again watching pornography, you placed your hand on A’s penis and began to masturbate for him. You told him that “this is what boys do”. You performed oral sex on A on that occasion, telling him that “It’s all right”. You then asked A if he would like to “do anal” telling him that it was part of the “learning curve” towards having sex with females. You and the victim engaged in anal

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1).
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3).

sex for about five minutes before A brought it to a halt, telling you that he did not want to do this anymore.

[6] But that was not the end of it. When A was 14 years old he visited you at your address. He was drunk and in a vulnerable position. You again engaged in anal sex. Between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2014 you continued to ask A if he would engage in further sex but he refused those offers. Each time he refused you would get upset with him and ignore him.

[7] On 8 March 2015, A was again at your home address watching pornography with you. You began masturbating him, and you performed…

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 Page

Details

AGLC: R v Page [2016] NZHC 2762
Case: [2016] NZHC 2762
Decision Date: 18 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of The Queen v Richard Page involved the defendant pleading guilty to six charges of sexual conduct with a young person under the age of 16 years. The charges included four instances of sexual connection and two instances of doing an indecent act. The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate finite sentence and whether preventive detention was warranted as a sentence. The court had to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court began by assessing the finite sentence, taking into account the aggravating features of the defendant's offending. These included the repetitive and persistent nature of the offending, the significant degree of grooming, the age disparity between the defendant and the victim, and the harm caused by the offending. The court also considered the defendant's previous convictions for indecent assault on a boy under 12, as well as the absence of any personal mitigating factors. After weighing these factors, the court determined a starting point of four years and six months imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of one year and nine months.

Turning to the question of preventive detention, the court assessed the preconditions set out in section 87(2) of the Sentencing Act and the relevant discretionary factors in section 87(4). While the preconditions were met, the court ultimately declined to impose preventive detention in the case. The court found that a lengthy determinate sentence with the possibility of an extended supervision order was preferable to provide adequate protection for society.

In conclusion, the defendant was sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of one year and nine months. The court also ordered that the defendant be a registrable offender under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, subject to ongoing reporting obligations upon release from custody.

Orders