R v PW - [2022] NZHC 2247

ORDER MADE PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER MADE PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS

PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

THE NAMES OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE ALSO BEEN ANONYMISED HERE FOR SUPPRESSION REASONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2020-031-1090

[2022] NZHC 2247

THE QUEEN

v

P W S W

Sentencing: 30 August 2022

Appearances:

B D Vanderkolk and A Barham for the Crown

P L Murray and P A C Foster for the Defendant P W S N Hewson for the Defendant S W

Oral Judgment:

30 August 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

R v P W [2022] NZHC 2247 [30 August 2022]

Table of Contents

Introduction [1]

Factual summary [5]

Police investigation [15]

Submissions of the parties [18]

Crown submissions [18]

Defence submissions [24]

Approach to sentencing [34]

Purposes and principles of sentencing [38]

Victim impact statement. [41]

Pre-sentence reports [42]

Psychological Assessment Report [46]

Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report [47]

Psychiatric report [49]

Section 27 report [50]

Letter in support [51]

PAC Report [53]

Psychological report [56]
Psychiatric report [57]

First step — Starting Point [59]

Aggravating factors of the offence [62]

Planning and premeditation [65]

Violence [66]

Vulnerability of victim [67]

Harm to victim [68]

Multiple offenders [72]

Scale of offending [74]

Breach of trust [75]

Degree of violation [76]

Mitigating factors of the offence [77]

R v Rose [79]

R v F [86]

R v K [88]

F (CA844/2013) v R [89]
Analysis [91]

Administering methamphetamine offending [95]

Making objectionable publications offending [100]

Second step — aggravating and mitigating factors of the offender [104]

Previous convictions [105]

Issues over previous good character [107]

Guilty plea [108]

Remorse [123]

Personal circumstances [127]

Sentence calculation [136]

Totality [140]

Minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) [153]

Preventive detention [160]

Registration on the Child Sex Offender Register [165]

Name suppression [168]

Result [169]

Other orders [171]

Introduction

[1] P W (Mr W) and S W (Ms W) you are here for sentencing in this Court today on a significant number of charges to which you have pleaded guilty. Mr W and Ms W, you are the stepfather and mother of the victim respectively. You have pleaded guilty to a wide range of charges of sexual offending and administering methamphetamine against your daughter who for anonymity reasons I will now refer to as the victim.

[2]You, Mr W, appear for sentence on 34 charges which are:

(a)one charge of sexual conduct with a child outside New Zealand under the Crimes Act 1961, carrying a maximum 10 year imprisonment penalty;

(b)10 charges of making an objectionable video/image under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment;

(c)eight charges of sexual violation by rape under the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum…

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 PW

Details

AGLC: R v PW [2022] NZHC 2247
Case: [2022] NZHC 2247
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendants, Mr W and Ms W, were sentenced for a range of charges related to the sexual abuse and administering of methamphetamine to their daughter over a period of seven years. The court found the defendants guilty of multiple counts of sexual violation by rape, unlawful sexual connection, administering methamphetamine, and making objectionable publications. The court accepted the Crown's submissions that the offending was of the most serious kind, involving prolonged and sustained sexual abuse, violence, and exploitation of the victim. The court also considered the submissions of the parties regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence and the offenders.

The court found that the defendants' offending involved a high degree of planning and premeditation, violence, vulnerability of the victim, significant harm to the victim, multiple offenders, a complete breach of trust, and an extreme degree of violation. The court adopted a starting point of 23 years' imprisonment for the sexual offending charges, with uplifts for the administering of methamphetamine and making objectionable publications. The court then adjusted the starting point by applying discounts for the defendants' guilty pleas, remorse, and personal circumstances. The final sentences imposed on the defendants were 17 years' imprisonment for Mr W and 12 years and six months' imprisonment for Ms W, with concurrent sentences for the other charges.

The court also considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the defendants accountable for the harm done to the victim, promoting a sense of responsibility for the harm, denouncing the conduct, deterring the defendants and others from committing similar offences, and assisting in the defendants' rehabilitation and reintegration. The court made orders for the defendants to be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register and for the suppression of their names and other identifying details to protect the identity of the victim. The court also made orders for the destruction of the objectionable publications, sex toys, and drug utensils found at the defendants' address.

Orders