R v R (CA235/05)

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, R, appealed against the sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed upon him by Judge Bouchier for six counts of sexual offending against his stepdaughter over a period of four years and eight months when she was aged between 12 and 16. The appellant argued that the starting point of eight years was excessive and that the discount of one year for mitigating factors was inadequate. The court considered the arguments of the parties and examined the legal principles relevant to sentencing in cases of sexual offending. The court found that the appellant's conduct was indistinguishable from rape and that the starting point for rape would need to be increased for the aggravating factors present in this case. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Judge Bouchier was warranted and dismissed the appeal. The court ordered that the name, address or particulars identifying the appellant, and the name or identifying particulars of the complainant, be prohibited from publication.
The legal issues in this case were whether the starting point for the sentence was appropriate and whether the discount for mitigating factors was adequate. The court considered the principles of sentencing in cases of sexual offending, including the need to consider the breach of trust, vulnerability and harm suffered by the victim, and the abusive conduct of the offender. The court also considered the mitigating factors present in this case, such as the appellant's previous good character, co-operation with the police and remorse shown. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Judge Bouchier was warranted and dismissed the appeal.