R v Roberson - [2013] NZHC 1929

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-092-018784 [2013] NZHC 1929

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM GEORGE ROBERSON

Hearing: 27 May-5 June 2013

Appearances: J L S Shaw for Crown
P H H Tomlinson for Prisoner

Judgment: 1 August 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF COURTNEY J

R v ROBERSON [2013] NZHC 1929 [1 August 2013]

[1] William George Roberson, you appear for sentence today having been

convicted on seven charges of sexual offending against children. These were:

One charge of inducing a boy aged under 12 to do an indecent act, which

carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The victim of this

offending was a young boy, J;

One charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. The victim of this offending
was also J;

Three charges of doing an indecent act on a girl under 12; this charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The victim here was T;Two representative charges of sexual violation by rape, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. These charges related to two young
sisters, S and C.

[2] The offences spanned approximately eight years between mid-1998 and

2006. The children that you offended against were aged between three and six years. They were the children of families who befriended and trusted you. You were aged between about 20 and 29 when you committed these offences. You are now 36 years old. You have relatively few other convictions and no serious previous convictions.

[3] I will shortly consider each of the offences separately, but at this stage there are some general matters that I need to cover. When a judge sentences on offences such as these the main objectives are to hold the offender accountable for his offending, promote in him a sense of responsibility, ensure community protection, provide for the victims’ interests and denounce and deter such offending. I am required to follow the principles set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. Of relevance in cases such as this is the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the type of offence, the effect of the offending on the victim and the need for consistency in sentencing between this and other cases.

[4] In addition, the Court of Appeal has provided guidance for sentencing judges in cases such as this through its decision in R v AM.[1] When I come to fixing an appropriate sentence on each of the charges I do so by reference to the that case and also to other cases that bear some similarity to the present offending to which counsel have referred me to in their submissions.[2]
[1] R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750.
[2] R v M HC Auckland CRI-2004-090-7573, 21 February 2006; R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145, R v
Batey [2012] NZHC 3001

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 Roberson

Details

AGLC: R v Roberson [2013] NZHC 1929
Case: [2013] NZHC 1929
Decision Date: 1 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William George Roberson was sentenced following his conviction on seven charges of sexual offending against children. The charges included inducing a boy under 12 to do an indecent act, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, doing an indecent act on a girl under 12, and sexual violation by rape. The victims, aged between three and six years, were the children of families who had befriended and trusted Roberson. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the type of offence, the effect of the offending on the victim, and the need for consistency in sentencing. The court was also required to consider cumulative sentences and the principles set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court held that the main objectives of sentencing in cases such as this were to hold the offender accountable for his offending, promote in him a sense of responsibility, ensure community protection, provide for the victims’ interests, and denounce and deter such offending. The court considered the offending against each victim separately, taking into account the level of planning and premeditation, the vulnerability of the victims, and the breach of trust. The court imposed concurrent sentences in respect of all the offences, with an adjustment at the end to reflect the totality of the offending. The final sentence was 18 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of 12 years, which was later reduced to 10 years due to a limitation on the maximum term of a minimum period of imprisonment.

The court found that there were no mitigating circumstances that could reduce the sentence. The end sentence mostly reflected the very serious offending that Roberson committed later against the two young girls, C and S, when he was in his late 20s. The court was particularly concerned about the future threat Roberson posed to the community due to his lack of insight into his offending, lack of remorse, and high risk of further sexual offending against children. The court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of two thirds of the end sentence to ensure community protection and to denounce and deter such offending.

Orders