[2] In sentencing you, I will outline first the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty. I will then turn to the victim impact statements, your personal circumstances, and the pre-sentence and other reports. I will set a starting point for the sentence before making adjustments to reflect your personal circumstances and guilty plea.

Offending

[3] The victim is now 12 years old. You were her neighbour and an associate of her parents.

Charge one – sexual conduct with a child (representative)

[4] This charge relates to your conduct between 1 November 2014 and

9 February 2015. On one occasion, you approached the victim when she was in the bedroom with one of her sisters. Once her sister left, you told the victim you wanted to be with her and wanted to fuck her. You then kissed her on the lips.

[5] You at one stage asked the victim if you could take photographs of her. You kissed the victim on a separate occasion and told her you loved her.

Charges 2, 3 and 4 – sexual conduct with a child under 12, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and sexual violation by rape

[6] Between 25 July 2016 and 26 September 2016, the victim, who was 11 years old, climbed out of her bedroom window at around midnight to come to your house. You asked her to do so. When she arrived you led her into your bedroom and pulled down the boxer shorts she was wearing before pulling down your own pants. You
pushed the victim onto your bed, kissed her on the lips, rolled her onto her stomach

2 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B(1), maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
3 Sections 128(1)(a) and 128B(1), maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.

and lightly slapped her buttocks with your hands and a fly swat. You asked her if it felt nice and she replied yes.

[7] You then rubbed the victim’s genital area with lubricant and inserted a plastic

homemade penis into her vagina, removing it when the victim said “ow”.

[8] You then penetrated the victim’s vagina with your penis whilst kissing her.

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 Pateman

Details

AGLC: R v Pateman [2017] NZHC 2401
Case: [2017] NZHC 2401
Decision Date: 2 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pateman was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The defendant, Keith Charles Pateman, pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and sexual violation by rape. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, evaluating his risk of reoffending, and deciding whether preventive detention was warranted to protect the community. The court also considered the victim impact statements, the defendant's previous conviction, and the pre-sentence reports.

The court began by outlining the facts of the case, which involved the defendant engaging in sexual activities with a 12-year-old victim over a period of time. The victim's family described the profound impact of the offending on their daughter, who had to attend counselling sessions and had become frightened and angry. The defendant had a previous conviction for unlawful sexual connection with a child, for which he had completed a rehabilitative programme. The pre-sentence reports indicated that the defendant had a moderate to high risk of reoffending but expressed remorse and a desire to undertake further treatment.

The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his age, health issues, and previous rehabilitation efforts. The psychiatrist noted that while the defendant had a moderate to high risk of reoffending, further assessment and intervention could substantially modify that risk. The court also took into account the possibility of imposing an Extended Supervision Order at the time of release, which would address remaining concerns regarding risk.

Ultimately, the court decided that preventive detention was not warranted as a lengthy determinate sentence, accompanied by appropriate forensic assessments and rehabilitation programmes, would provide sufficient protection for the community. The court set a starting point of 12 and a half years' imprisonment, adjusted for the defendant's previous conviction and guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of nine years and nine months' imprisonment. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and ordered the defendant to be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.

Orders