R v Robinson - [2014] NZHC 2827

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-070-2102 [2014] NZHC 2827

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID LESLIE ROBINSON

Hearing: 12 and 13 November 2014

Counsel:

HA Wrigley for Crown
AF Rickard-Simms for Defendant

Sentence:

13 November 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF FOGARTY J

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellmann, Tauranga
Pacific Coast Law, Papamoa

R v ROBINSON [2014] NZHC 2827 [13 November 2014]

[1] Mr Robinson, you appear for sentence after pleading guilty to five charges, all being sexual offences. The first is to a representative charge that between 1
November 1996 and 15 September 1998, did indecently assault the complainant, a girl under the age of 12 years. The particulars being that he touched her upper thigh genital region in bed and pressed your erect penis against her while driving with her on your lap, being an offence under s 133(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

[2] The second charge, also a representative charge, is that between 1 November

1996 and 31 December 1999, you did sexually violate the same girl by unlawful sexual connection, the particulars being connection occasioned by the penetration of her genitalia by your finger, this being an offence under s 128(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.

[3] The third charge, also a representative charge, was that between 1 November

1996 and 5 [15] September 1998, he induced the same girl, being under the age of

12, to do an indecent act on you, the particulars being placing her hand on your penis, this being an offence under s 133(1)(c) of the Crimes Act.

[4] The fourth charge, also a representative charge, is that you, between

1 November 1996 and 31 December 1999, at Tauranga and Thames, with the intent of offending the same girl, did an indecent act, the particulars being, exposing your erect penis to her and/or rubbing his penis in her presence, being an offence under s 126 of the Crimes Act.

[5] The fifth charge, is also a representative charge, is that you, between 1 May and 31 May 1992, sexually violated another girl by unlawful sexual connection, the particulars being a connection between your mouth and/or tongue and her genitalia, being an offence under s 128 and 128B of the Crimes Act.

[6] These pleas of guilty were taken on what was to be the day of the commencement of a trial, a plea indication having been given the Friday before the trial which obviated the need for the complainants to travel to the trial. You pleaded guilty to the first five counts and an amended count. Originally the counts were going to be 13 counts that would have gone to trial. Katz J recorded in a minute that

the Crown had also provided a combined summary of facts relating to these first five counts which had been agreed with the defence.

[7] When I came to deal with the sentencing, as you…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2014] NZHC 2827
Case: [2014] NZHC 2827
Decision Date: 13 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Leslie Robinson pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual offending against two child victims, including indecent assault and sexual violation. The sentencing hearing in the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, considered the appropriate band classification for the offending according to the Court of Appeal's decision in R v AM. The Crown argued for a band 3 classification, while defence counsel contended for band 1 or band 2. The court found the offending against the first complainant alone warranted a band 3 classification due to the seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim. The second complainant's case also indicated very serious offending. The court adopted the Crown's analysis, sentencing Robinson to a total of 11 years and 8 months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 5 years and 10 months for the most serious charge. Counts 6 to 13 were discharged as part of the plea agreement.

Orders