R v Rose
[2021] NZHC 2110
•13 August 2021
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT(S)/ PERSON(S) UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI-2019-070-1853
[2021] NZHC 2110
THE QUEEN v
LAKEN MAREE ROSE AND ANDREW ALAN WILLIAMS
Hearing: 13 August 2021 Appearances:
A Pollett for the Crown
P J Morgan QC for Defendant Rose W T Nabney for Defendant Williams
Sentence:
13 August 2021
SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J
Counsel/Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga P J Morgan QC, Hamilton W T Nabney, Tauranga
R v ROSE & WILLIAMS [2021] NZHC 2110 [13 August 2021]
Introduction
[1] This morning Mr Williams appears for sentencing on 56 charges to which he entered guilty pleas shortly before the commencement of his joint trial with Ms Rose. Some of those pleas were vacated on a conditional basis and new pleas entered this morning. They are:
(a)sexual violation by rape (x8);1
(b)sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (x11);2
(c)Attempted sexual violation (x3);3
(d)indecencies on a child (x22);4
(e)indecencies on a young person (x1);5
(f)knowingly made objectionable publications (x6);6 and
(g)possessed objectionable publications (x5).7
[2] Ms Rose appears for sentencing following conviction on 55 charges. Of these she pleaded guilty to 10. Following a judge alone trial before me she was convicted of a further 45 charges and acquitted of five;
(a)sexual violation by rape (x6);8
(b)sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (x9);9
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 129(1). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4 Section 132(3). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
5 Section 134(3). Maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
6 Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, ss 124(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
7 Sections 131A(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment or a $50,000 fine.
8 Crimes Act, above n 1, ss 128(1)(a), 128B and 66. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
9 Sections 128(1)(b),128B and 66. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Attempted sexual violation (x3);10
(d)indecencies on a child (x21);11
(e)indecencies on a young person (x10);12
(f)knowingly made objectionable publications (x4);13 and
(g)possessed objectionable publications (x2).14
[3] There will be four parts to my sentencing remarks. First, I will set out the factual background to the offending. Secondly, I will cover the Victim Impact Statements, reports to the Court, relevant personal circumstances, the purposes and principles of sentencing and the approach this sentencing will follow. Thirdly, I will determine the starting points, any uplifts and make adjustments for any mitigating features. Finally, I will consider whether it is appropriate to impose a minimum period of imprisonment (“MPI”) on either of the offenders.
[4] I note at this point that originally the Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention for Mr Williams. Delay in provision of the required reports under s 88 of the Sentencing Act 2002 is largely responsible for the significant time which has elapsed between entry of Mr Williams’ guilty pleas and his sentencing today. That in turn has resulted in a delay to Ms Rose’s sentencing. Preventive detention is no longer pursued by the Crown—rightly so from my perspective as the relevant reports did not support an indeterminate sentence having regard to the criteria in ss 87(2)(c) and (4) of the Sentencing Act.
[5] Before I embark on the sentencing process, I wish to comment more broadly on the approach I have decided to adopt here. It involves calculating the correct sentence having regard to a broad range of factors and variables. I initially considered
10 Sections 129(1) and 66. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
11 Sections 132(3) and 66. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
12 Crimes Act, above n 1, s 134(3). Maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
13 Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act, above n 6, ss 124(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment; Crimes Act, above n 1, s 66.
14 Sections 131A(1)(a) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment or a $50,000 fine; Crimes Act, above n 1, 66.
whether I could structure my approach on a victim by victim basis. That approach would give proper recognition to each of the victims of Mr Williams and Ms Rose’s offending. It would give proper regard to the trauma, pain and damage they each suffered. It would treat each as a person who, in their own personal and particular circumstances, suffered in a unique way from the actions of the . In the end and not without a great deal of thought, I decided that a personalised, victim by victim, approach is simply impossible on the facts of the present case. In doing so it is important for me to record, however, that I intend no disrespect to any victim in adopting a more global approach. Indeed, that is the formula which the Crown and both counsel for the defence have adopted, no doubt for exactly the same reasons. In the circumstances it is the only effective way to approach the sentencing exercise.
[6] Having said that I wish to make clear that in calculating the sentences I intend to impose I have specifically turned my mind to the individual circumstances of each victim and the sentences I would have imposed were they to be considered separately. At the end of this judgment I will list the individual sentences I have imposed on each charge and for each victim. Except for one of those sentences (for reasons I shall explain later), they will be served concurrently meaning they will run together. Despite that, they will be recorded on the official record as the sentences imposed.
Factual background
Introduction
[7] Mr Williams, I do not intend to set out all the details of your disturbing offending over several years as described in the Summary of Facts. A brief overview is all that is required.
[8] Likewise, Ms Rose, I will not be rehearsing all the factual background and findings in my Reasons for Verdict. Again, a summary is all that is necessary.
[9] I note at the outset that my sentencing of Mr Williams proceeds on the Summary of Facts to which he pleaded guilty and in respect of Ms Rose, on the basis of the findings in my Reasons for Verdict. To the extent that this may result in any minor asymmetry in the sentencing (for example any reduction in culpability I may
recognise for Ms Rose on account of the dynamics of her relationship with Mr Williams, when the Summary of Facts to which Mr Williams pleaded provides no basis for a countervailing uplift), I must accept that for the obvious reason that Mr Williams has not had the opportunity to challenge what Ms Rose has said of those dynamics and the fact that they did not significantly feature in the statement of facts.
[10] Mr Williams and Ms Rose were in a relationship for approximately 10 years. The relationship was at times turbulent, at others apparently intense and loving. It featured several changes in residence, a break-up and reconciliation, and most concerningly a shared sexual interest in underaged girls.
[11] The offending was against seven victims ranging in age from three to 13 years nine months. I shall step through the facts specific to each victim. One of these victims remains unidentified. Mr Williams offended against all seven victims, while Ms Rose offended against four.
Charges relating to JR
[12] JR [Redacted] and was 13 years nine months of age at the time of the offending.
[13] On the weekend of 16 and 17 August 2014 Ms Rose and JR travelled to Palmerston North and stayed in a motel. Mr Williams met them there and engaged in sexual activity with JR. There he raped, digitally penetrated and indecently assaulted her, the latter involving touching JR’s breasts and ejaculating over her buttocks. This activity was photographed by Ms Rose.
[14] Ms Rose, on different occasions, induced JR to penetrate herself vaginally and anally with various sex toys and to masturbate herself. Ms Rose instructed JR on how to position and touch herself, and filmed JR as she did so. She also inserted various sex toys into JR herself and filmed her actions.
Charges relating to TC
[15] These charges relate only to Mr Williams, although the Crown used evidence of them as propensity against Ms Rose at her trial.
[16] Mr Williams was a friend and work colleague of a male who was at the time in a relationship with TC’s mother. TC was five years of age. On or about 12 November 2016, TC was dropped at the offenders’ home for a sleepover while her mother and Mr Williams’ friend had a night out.
[17] Mr Williams took a bath with TC, during which, he raped her. This was filmed using a cell phone. In my Reasons for Verdict I said that the likelihood, in my opinion, was that Ms Rose did the filming, although I said that I was not required to decide that point as she did not face any party charge in respect of the offending. I found, however, that her knowledge of what occurred in the bath was relevant in terms of other offending she was charged as a party to.
Charges relating to SB
[18] The offenders met 12 year old SB at a horse show in late September 2018. SB was a keen horse rider and Ms Rose offered to help her improve her skills. Between 15 December 2018 and 7 February 2019 SB stayed at the offenders’ house to help exercise and care for horses—in total between five and 10 times. At least twice during her stays, Mr Williams wore a loose fitting robe and positioned himself opposite SB so that his genitals were exposed. During the evenings the offenders and SB would watch movies together. On several occasions Mr Williams sat next to SB and rubbed her legs and thighs. He placed his hand underneath her top and rubbed her stomach and lower chest area.
[19] In mid to late January of 2019 SB travelled with the offenders to a horse show in Taranaki. Mr Williams became angry when SB refused to engage in sexual activity with him and the offenders left Taranaki without her.
[20]I note that again only Mr Williams faced charges in respect of this victim.
Charges relating to ET
[21] ET was just three years of age at the time of the offending. Ms Rose had been employed by ET’s father in the equine industry and she was friends with ET’s mother, N.
[22] On one occasion, both offenders were at N and ET’s home. They offered to give ET a bath. Mr Williams recorded film footage in the bathroom, and in ET’s bedroom, of ET while she was naked.
[23] On a second occasion in October 2018, Ms Rose took N for a massage at a local shopping centre while Mr Williams supervised ET at her home. Text messages sent between the offenders in the weeks prior to this offending establish Ms Rose was aware of Mr Williams’ sexual intentions with ET. During this window of opportunity Mr Williams induced various indecent acts from ET, did indecent acts on her, indecently assaulted her, sexually violated her by unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and likely raped her. All of this was captured on video.
[24] The next day Mr Williams suffered a heart attack and was hospitalised for several days. After his recovery Ms Rose described him as even bolder in his sexual interactions with children, seemingly on the basis that he had nothing to lose.
[25] On the third occasion, in December 2018 the offenders spontaneously visited N and ET’s house. Ms Rose conversed with N in the living area. Mr Williams spent time with ET in her adjoining bedroom where he raped her, sexually violated her by unlawful sexual connection, induced indecent acts by her and indecently assaulted her. When I say in that context that he raped her on that occasion, there is some uncertainty as to whether the rape charge to which I refer occurred in December 2018 or October 2018. I address this issue later in my Sentencing Notes.
[26] On the final occasion the offenders again visited N and ET at their home, Ms Rose conversed with N while Mr Williams played with ET in the garden, during which time he again sexually assaulted her.
Charges relating to AS and CS
[27] The offending against sisters AS and CS occurred at the [Redacted] Naturist Park where the offenders stayed on five separate occasions between 10 January 2019 and 10 March 2019. AS and CS were eight and four years of age respectively.
[28] Mr Williams and Ms Rose befriended AS and CS while they stayed at the holiday park. The children regularly visited Mr Williams’ and Ms Rose’s cabin. Evidence of the offending is recorded on video and in photographs taken by both Mr Williams and Ms Rose at different times.
[29] Mr Williams sexually violated AS by rape and unlawful sexual connection. He induced her to perform sexual acts. Ms Rose manipulated AS manually and through play to adopt various sexually explicit positions while Mr Williams filmed her genitalia and buttocks.
[30] In respect of CS, videos depict Mr Williams rubbing her body and digitally penetrating her. As with AS, Ms Rose encouraged CS to manoeuvre into certain positions, or would physically position her so that her genitalia were exposed to, and could be filmed by, Mr Williams.
[31] AS eventually disclosed the offending to a family friend. The Police were notified and the entirety of the offending before the Court was subsequently exposed.
Victim Impact Statements
[32] Victim Impact Statements have been received from SB, her mother, TC’s mother and ET’s mother. I acknowledge at the outset the courage of each of them in providing their statements. Advice from SB’s mother is particularly concerning. She reports that subsequent to the offending SB became “angry at the world” and that her anger and feelings of hate and guilt developed into self-harm, anxiety, depression and one suicide attempt. Regrettably this is an all too familiar postscript to offending of this nature, and this in the context, of what was among the lower order of offences committed by Mr Williams. The implications may be life long and life threatening,
[33] I acknowledge also the statement from ET’s mother. It is among the most intelligent, balanced and moving statements I have received in my time as a Judge. She says, in respect of Mr Williams, that at some level she “comprehends paedophilia like I would a drug or alcohol addiction, or obsessive disorder”, but says that she will never understand why he did not seek help rather than “choose to destroy and violate children”. She describes Ms Rose’s manipulations as “nothing short of monstrous” and considers that she violated her child just as much as Mr Williams. She records also feeling “this massive shame that I had not been able to protect my child, that is something that will never go away”. I acknowledge these emotions while reiterating the point made in para [47] of my Reasons for Verdict that the fact her three year old daughter could have been violated by Mr Williams in the way she was is a reflection, in my view, of the audacity of his offending and the extent of Ms Rose’s manipulation rather than, in any sense, a reflection on her parenting.
[34] I note that while speaking to a report writer for sentencing purposes, [Redacted] says that JR has not come to terms with the offending against her and still suffers from mental health issues in relation to it. [Redacted] disputes Ms Rose’s account of the offending against JR and says JR was manipulated and forced to participate.
Offenders’ backgrounds
[35] Mr Williams is a 54 year old man, originally from South Africa. He spent his early childhood in Zimbabwe, describing that period of time as “heaven”. At the age of 10 his parents divorced, and he moved to the United Kingdom with his mother. He reports four instances of sexual abuse between the ages of seven and 11 but says this “did not affect him”. He did well at secondary school, becoming Head Boy. Mr Williams left school just shy of 17 and worked as a chef in a hotel.
[36] Mr Williams remained in the United Kingdom until moving to New Zealand at the age of 19 with his then partner, who is the mother of his two sons (now in their thirties).
[37] In New Zealand Mr Williams engaged in a variety of work including running a glass studio, working for an insurance company, managing a night club, working in
a building depot, and running a tiling and Swedish massage businesses. He had a side- line in equine massage and worked for high profile equestrians. By all outward appearances he was a reasonably successful middle-aged man and contributing member of society. He has no prior criminal history.
[38] Ms Rose is a 32 year old woman who was born and raised in Dannevirke. She spent her childhood on her parents’ farm along with her three younger siblings. She is considered to have been a shy and quiet child who lacked in self-confidence and struggled with anxiety. She experienced some bullying at school and reports significant trauma as a result of being raped at the age of 18 years.
[39] As a child, Ms Rose spent many weekends participating and competing in show jumping. Her involvement in the equine industry led to a career in horse training. Immediately prior to her arrest, Ms Rose was undertaking a “pre-vet” course through Massey University. Like Mr Williams she has not previously offended.
[40] Ms Rose and Mr Williams met at the 2009 Horse of the Year show when they were 19 and 42 years old respectively. The relationship developed quickly, and Mr Williams moved into Ms Rose’s flat within a couple of weeks. The couple were reasonably mobile during their relationship, living variously in Auckland, Dannevirke and Cambridge. At different times they lived both separately and together.
[41] The relationship was intense, characterised by almost incessant text exchanges, even after many years together, and constant declarations of love. But it was also turbulent, resulting in a period of separation and then reconciliation. Ms Rose appears to have been heavily influenced by a desire to please her older and more sophisticated partner. She describes adjusting to his desire for sex outside of their relationship and the steady descent of the couple into more and more extreme offending. In my Reasons for Verdict I referred to her psychiatric history and to the evidence of Dr Peter Dean. I accepted his evidence that throughout the relationship she was emotionally needy and at times stressed and anxious. I accepted his diagnosis of dependent personality disorder. A subsequent report from Dr Skipworth of the Waitemata DHB
does not go quite so far15 but I intend to sentence on the basis of my findings. I considered her someone with an intense desire to please her partner but rejected her evidence that her offending was in response to specific threats of violence from Mr Williams.16 I do not, however, sentence Mr Williams on the basis that his culpability is greater for any manipulation of Ms Rose. That was not alleged in the Statement of Facts to which he pleaded guilty.
Provision of advice to the Courts and other reports
Mr Williams
[42] The Court has received a pre-sentencing report dated 17 February 2021. The writer assessed the factors contributing to Mr Williams’ offending as being his dysfunctional relationship and his offending-related sexual arousal and attitude. Mr Williams stated that although he was not originally aroused by the sexual conduct with children, he became aroused after a while. He expressed concern for the psychological wellbeing of the victims but maintained he did not cause them physical harm because there was no penetration of them.
[43] Elements of Mr Williams’ narrative minimise his own part in the offending and attempt to transfer blame to Ms Rose. However, after reportedly reflecting on his actions he disclosed he felt “disgusted” with himself and very remorseful.
[44] A psychiatric report dated 10 May 2021 was prepared by Dr Barry-Walsh, a consultant forensic psychiatrist with the Capital & Coast District Health Board. Dr Barry-Walsh opines that some of Mr Williams’ claims, such as him having no sexual interest in children, are difficult to reconcile with the evidence of sexual excitement during the offending. He considers Mr Williams to demonstrate highly deviant sexual interests. Mr Williams’ continued denial of any such deviant sexual interest, minimisation of the offending, and efforts to apportion blame to Ms Rose, in his opinion demonstrated a concerning lack of insight and self-awareness. This points
15 Although noting some features of the disorder, at least as reported by Ms Rose, he assesses her as “characterologically shy, anxious and lacking confidence in social settings”. He also diagnosed her as having post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
16 I acknowledged some past relatively low level domestic violence but rejected Ms Rose’s compulsion defences.
to the presence, in his opinion, of “responsivity barriers” in Mr Williams’ psyche that could limit the benefit he might receive from treatment.
[45] Dr Barry-Walsh observed that Mr Williams’ offending continued through to an age at which most offenders in the general population would ‘age out’ of offending. Given this and other risk factors, he emphasises what he calls “considerable concerns” about the likelihood of Mr Williams re-offending if presented with the opportunity.
[46] A second report dated 4 June 2021 was prepared by clinical psychologist Josie Hammington. Mr Williams denied that he had any sexual interest in children, reporting that he only participated in the activity at Ms Rose’s insistence. He reported he knew the offending was wrong, but did so to please her. Ms Hammington observed that he held ongoing distortions about the offending and his involvement. In her opinion he engages in a narrative where he sees himself as driven by a selfless desire to please others, distortions that children are naturally drawn to him and they initiated sexual conduct, and beliefs that his offending will not cause significant harm to those involved.
[47] In respect of the likelihood of reoffending, Ms Hammington indicates Mr Williams demonstrates a sexually deviant lifestyle, sexual compulsivity, poor insight and cognitive distortions, all of which elevate his recidivism risk. She concludes that he is of an average risk of re-offending sexually. She further notes that such risk might be reduced if Mr Williams engaged meaningfully in treatment, and that he was considered suitable for the high intensity programme at Te Piriti or Kia Marama, Special Treatment Unit: Child Sex Offending Programme.
Ms Rose
[48] The Court has also received a pre-sentencing report in respect of Ms Rose. The report writer states that Ms Rose lacked insight into the gravity of her offending and failed to understand that actual harm was caused to the victims. She notes that the [Redacted] offending factor adds a level of complexity which is particularly concerning.
[49] The likelihood of Ms Rose re-offending is assessed as being low to medium. Further offending would likely be influenced by other relationships with people who exhibited deviant sexual behaviours. However, the report writer notes that Ms Rose’s perspective on the offending presents risks and cognitive distortions which will require extensive individual psychological intervention.
[50] A psychiatric report dated 14 February 2021 was prepared by Dr Jeremy Skipworth, a consultant forensic psychiatrist with the Auckland Regional Forensic Psychiatry Services. Dr Skipworth acknowledged Ms Rose had characterological elements of dependency and anxiety which made her vulnerable to suggestion, but disagreed with the diagnosis of Dependant Personality Disorder given by Dr Dean at trial. He found Ms Rose met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
[51] Dr Skipworth also recognises cognitive distortions relating to the extent of Ms Rose’s involvement in the offending results in her distancing herself from responsibility for the victims’ traumatic experiences. He considers that Ms Rose would be of low risk of reoffending once she has had the benefit of psychological treatment.
Approach to sentencing
[52] This Court is required to have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing as provided for in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act. Many are relevant and applicable to the current case. In approaching this sentence, I have considered the victims’ interests, what is necessary for the denunciation and deterrence of similar behaviour, the seriousness of the offending and the degree of culpability of each of the offenders.
[53] I note that in terms of s 8(c) of the Sentencing Act that the Court must impose the maximum penalty prescribed if offending is within the most serious of cases and note also the terms of s 8(d), that it must impose a sentence near to the maximum where the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which the penalty is prescribed. These sections are engaged. It is in fact difficult to imagine more egregious offending against children. Words such as “sickening” and “depraved”
come readily to mind, although necessarily I must sentence from a basis which, as much as possible, detaches myself from the emotions implicit in any such descriptions.
[54] Section 9A of the Sentencing Act is also engaged. It provides that when sentencing an offender in a case which involves violence toward or neglect of a child the following aggravating factors must be taken into account to the extent that they are applicable:
(a)the defencelessness of the victim:
(b)in relation to any harm resulting from the offence, any serious or long- term physical or psychological effect on the victim:
(c)the magnitude of the breach of any relationship of trust between the victim and the offender:
(d)threats by the offender to prevent the victim reporting the offending: and
(e)deliberate concealment of the offending from authorities.
[55] I acknowledge that the s 9A factors overlap with the aggravating factors used to assess culpability in sexual violation and rape cases and am mindful to avoid double-counting in this respect.
[56] The tariff case for rape is the Court of Appeal decision in R v AM.17 There the Court canvassed a variety of what it calls “culpability assessment factors”18 and provided four bands with corresponding starting point ranges, into which offending could fit:
[90] The bands for sexual violation where the lead offence is rape, penile penetration of the mouth or anus or violation involving objects are:
(a)Rape band one: 6-8 years;
(b)Rape band two: 7-13 years;
(c)Rape band three: 12-18 years; and
(d)Rape band four: 16-20 years.
17 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, [2012] 2 NZLR 750.
18 Beginning at [34].
[57] Consideration of culpability assessment factors and their degree of seriousness will assist in determining a band. Factors relating to this offending might include; planning and premeditation, vulnerability of the victim, harm to the victim, the existence of multiple offenders, scale of the offending, breach of trust and degree of violation.19
[58] Band one is appropriate for offending at the lower end of the spectrum but is not appropriate for cases which feature young victims.20 Band two is appropriate for offending where two or three of the factors are present to a moderate degree. It can include offending against children or offending with multiple offenders.21 Band three encompasses offending with aggravating features at a serious level. It will include offending where two or three factors increase culpability to a high degree, or where there are more than three factors to a moderate degree.22 Band 4 is reserved for the most serious of cases. Aggravating and culpability factors will be present to a high degree. Counsel for both offenders and for the Crown agree that the appropriate band for the offending collectively is band 4. I agree also.
[59] R v AM also provides starting point bands for unlawful sexual connection offending:23
[113] For other violation where unlawful sexual connection is the lead offence the bands are:
(a)USC band one: 2-5 years;
(b)USC band two: 4-10 years; and
(c)USC band three: 9-18 years imprisonment.
[60] The same culpability assessment factors that apply to the rape bands, apply here. The first band is for offending at the lower end of the spectrum, where one or two aggravating factors are present to a low or moderate degree. The offending might be relatively brief and there would be a lack of violence.24 Band two is appropriate
19 At [37], [42]-[50] and [52].
20 At [93].
21 At [98].
22 At [105].
23 At [113].
24 At [114].
for cases of relatively moderate seriousness and will involve two or three aggravating factors which increase culpability to a moderate degree.25 Band three is appropriate for the most serious offending of this type. It will encompass two or three aggravating factors that increase culpability to a high degree, or more than three factors where they are present to a moderate degree. It might also feature a particularly young victim.26 Again I consider the offending in this case to engage the highest band available.
[61] There is no tariff case for indecent assault of a young person. This reflects “the wide range of conduct potentially caught by s 134(3) of the Crimes Act…”.27 The Court of Appeal has previously noted that this type of sexual offending against children will usually attract a starting point of imprisonment. Factors that can assist in determining culpability include the age and vulnerability of the victim, the degree of the abuse of trust, the intrusiveness and intensity of the act, planning and premeditation, the harm caused, and attempts made to conceal the offending.28
[62] There is also no tariff case for indecent acts on a child. However, in R v Paki Wylie J helpfully set out a list of factors relevant in assessing culpability that had been gleaned from earlier Court of Appeal cases.29 They mirror the factors for indecent assault on a young person, but also include the duration of the offending, the duration of the offending against the particular victim, and whether the offending was repetitive.30 The starting point will usually attract a sentence of imprisonment.
[63] Similarly, there is no tariff case for attempted sexual violation. However, the courts refer to both case law and the culpability factors set out by R v AM in coming to sentencing start points.31
[64] Sentencing on charges of making and possessing objectionable material is a matter of discretion for the Judge. Sentences vary according to the substance of the
25 At [117].
26 At [120].
27 Pattison v R [2019] NZCA 103 at [19].
28 At [20].
29 R v Paki [2012] NZHC 3494 at [30].
30 At [30].
31 Tapp v R [2019] NZHC 2436 at [60].
material (whether it is penetrative, non-penetrative or other), the quantity of the material and whether it was distributed.32
Starting points
[65] Referring to the Bands set out in R v AM, I start by identifying the factors I consider to be relevant to the offending generally. I then move to consider Mr Williams’ and Ms Rose’s individual starting points, identifying the factors particular to each.
Planning and premeditation involved in the commission of the offending
[66] I am satisfied that this factor is present to a high degree in the current case. There are numerous instances where it is clear the offending was pre-planned. Opportunities were created for the sole purpose of sexual activity with the victims. The motel which JR was taken to for the purpose of sexual activity was booked in advance. Similarly, the offenders’ holidays at the [Redacted] naturist park were planned for the purpose of finding and exploiting children. There are other more specific examples, one being when Ms Rose organised for ET’s mother, N, to leave ET in Mr Williams’ care while she and Ms Rose went for a massage. Text messages between the offenders prior to this event record their plans to arrange a time to see ET, and to “at least” get some photographs. Their intentions are obvious from other text messages, sent during the previous week, when ET and other girls her age are discussed in the following terms (I urge discretion on the part of the Press in repeating any of this, however it is necessary to give perspective to the sentence):
Williams: Be great ages 1 to 4 no talking xxx
…
Rose:Yeah babe that’s the ages I want and really you can just do whatever you want to them xxx
Williams: And I so want ass from them and be able to finger pussies xxx Rose: You could even put your cock in the mouth and ass xccc Rose: Haha writing same things xxxx
32 As was the case in R v Clode [2008] NZCA 421, [2009] 1 NZLR 312.
Vulnerability of the victims of the offending
[67] All six identified victims were highly vulnerable on account of their ages. Half of the known victims were five years or under. The youngest was three, the eldest 13 years nine months. In the case of the eldest of the victims, her [Redacted] relationship with Ms Rose added a further dimension of vulnerability. Counsel agree that the unidentified victim in respect of which Mr Williams alone is charged and in respect of whom he pleaded guilty to charges of rape and unlawful sexual connection, was no more than five years of age.
The level of harm caused to the victims
[68] R v AM notes that while physical harm can be an indication of more serious offending, the absence of it does not say anything about the psychological and other non-physical harm a victim may have suffered.33 A relevant consideration is the impact of the offending on others, such as family members providing care and support to the victim.
[69] The impacts of the offending are already apparent here in psychological trauma, attempted self-harm and feelings of parental guilt, the latter borne of a belief— incorrect but nevertheless understandable—that the parents concerned could have done more to protect their children. It may be many years yet before the full extent of the harm is identified. It can only be hoped that for the youngest of the victims, ET, TC, CS and the unidentified child, infantile amnesia affords them some protection later in life, but there must be real cause for concern that one or more lives have been irretrievably blighted by the offenders’ actions.
Multiple offenders
[70] The Court in R v AM identified multiple offenders as a factor relevant to culpability. Mr Morgan QC submits that this comment is directed to cases involving more than one violator, rather than cases involving a single violator and a party to that offending. I am unable to agree with him. I note as a preliminarily observation that Ms Rose is being sentenced on just one less charge than Mr Williams and on 15 counts
33 R v AM, above n 18, at [44].
of sexual violation compared to the 19 faced by Mr Williams. These are not in themselves material differences. The fact both Mr Williams and Ms Rose acted together increases the seriousness of their offending. They played different roles in respect of the offending—one a perpetrator in respect of all victims, the other a combination of perpetrator (JR, AS and CS) and enabler (ET, AS and CS). I share the view of ET’s mother that Mr Williams would not have been able to access the majority of the victims if it had not been for Ms Rose.
The scale of offending
[71] This includes consideration of the number of victims and incidents, and the degree of degradation. I note again the number of victims, seven for Mr Williams and four for Ms Rose—both high numbers by reference to any of the analogous case law. I accept that none of the victims were subjected to more than four episodes of abuse, but the totality of the offending spanned five years. Further, there is a level of degradation to the offending, because it was routinely photographed or videoed. Indeed, in many instances the victims were physically manipulated into positions for the sole purpose of graphically exposing their genitalia so that it could be photographed or filmed.
[72] Since Ms Rose’s offending relates to fewer victims, this must, in my view, ultimately reflect in the overall assessment of her criminality when compared with Mr Williams.
Breaches of trust
[73] Four victims, JR, ET, TC and SB were entrusted to the offenders’ care by their parents. ET was the daughter of Ms Rose’s close friend, N. TC was the daughter of Mr Williams’ friends. SB stayed with them to further her horse handling skills. JR [Redacted]. Her parents had no reason to doubt her safety when with [Redacted][Ms Rose]. Each of these cases involved a gross breach of trust.
Degree of violation
[74] I accept that in respect of a number of the victims, full penetrative sex does not appear to have occurred.34 Nevertheless, Mr Williams accepts sufficient penetration to constitute rape in the case of AS (three charges), TC (one charge), ET (two charges) and the unidentified victim (one charge). In respect of JR (whose rape he also admits) I find, based on the video footage, that he engaged in penetrative intercourse. He also accepts multiple charges of actual or attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (routinely introduction of at least part of his penis into the anus of his victims)35 involving AS, CS, JR, ET and the unknown complainant.
Case law
[75]With these factors in mind, I turn to consider the case law.
[76] In R v Palenski36 Mr Palenski was sentenced on 15 charges of sexual violation by rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connections, sexual conduct with a child under 12, making objectionable material and possessing objectionable material. The victim was four years of age. Mr Palenski was in a relationship with the victim’s mother. Factors taken into account at sentencing included the age of the victim, the fact there was one victim only, the serious breach of trust (the victim’s mother had trusted her to Mr Palenski’s care), and that video footage and photographs were taken and kept by Mr Palenski for his later gratification. A starting point of 13 years for the rape charge was identified, uplifted to 15 years for the other charges. Mr Palenski had not been before the Court before. Discounts were given for guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative prospects and mental health.
[77] In S v R37 the 51 year old offender faced 28 charges of sexual offending against five victims between the ages of four and 14 years. One victim was his daughter, another his stepdaughter and the remaining three were his employees’ children. He
34 In my Reasons for Verdict at [187] I indicated, based on my review of still photographs, that Mr Williams “appear[ed] [to be engaged in] penetrative vaginal intercourse” in respect of TC. That remains my view but it is not held with sufficient certainty to sentence on that basis.
35 I note that in R v AM, above n 18, penile penetration of the anus or mouth is included within the rape bands.
36 R v Palenski [2020] NZHC 1621.
37 S v R [2019] NZCA 395.
faced charges of sexual conduct with a child under 12, sexual conduct with a child under 16, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and sexual violation by rape. The offending was identified as being within R v AM band four because of the level of planning and premeditation, the vulnerability of the victims, the harm caused, the scale of the offending (being five victims over 10 years), the frequency of the offending, the nature of the acts (some of which was degrading), and the significant breaches of trust. An 18 year starting point with an MPI of 10 years was imposed. There were no mitigating features or discounts. The sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[78] In R v Marshall38 Mr Marshall committed a variety of offences against a child while she was between the ages four and seven. He was sentenced on charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (including anal rape, digital penetration and oral penetration), sexual conduct with a child under the age of 12 and knowingly making objectionable publications. He faced additional charges for making objectionable publications and bestiality in relation to an adult woman who was also his co-offender. The aggravating features were the age and vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust (he was the victim’s stepfather), the scale and frequency of the offending, the fact there were two offenders, the required planning and premeditation, the degree of harm to victim, and the high degree of culpability. A starting point of 18 years was uplifted to 23 years on a totality basis. A discount for his guilty plea resulted in an end sentence of 16 years six months with an MPI of 10 years.
[79] In Ellmers v R39 the offender sexually abused two victims, the parents of whom he had befriended. The first victim was between ages three and seven during the course of the offending. The second victim was between the ages of nine and 12. The offender was sentenced for 36 charges involving sexual violation by anal penetration, digital penetration, oral sexual connection, indecent acts on a child under 12, indecent acts on a young person under 16, stupefying or disabling and making intimate visual recordings. He faced an additional 29 charges for supplying and possessing objectionable material. In the High Court the Judge took a starting point of 19 years
38 R v Marshall [2020] NZHC 1271.
39 Ellmers v R [2013] NZCA 676.
for the sexual violation charges and applied an uplift of six years for the other charges and Mr Ellmers’ previous convictions.
Discussion
Starting points
[80] The unique circumstances of this case mean that analogies with previous case law are at best imperfect. Broadly, I consider Ellmers v R to be the closest fit because of the aggravating features it shares with the current offending. The number and range of charges faced is comparable, and the ages of the victims in that case are similar to the present. Additionally, Mr Ellmers also offended against the children of people he had befriended (resulting in significant breaches of trust), and there was a high level of premeditation. The key distinguishing feature, in this case, is the number of victims; there were two victims only in Ellmers. In Ms Rose’s case, the number of victims is double that. In Mr Williams’ case, it is more than triple.
[81] The Crown proposes a starting point of 20 years for Mr Williams, a position that is properly, in my view, accepted by Mr Nabney and Mr Williams. No lead charge is identified, rather both the Crown and Mr Nabney group the sexual violation charges together as collective lead charges.
[82] I consider the lead charge to be charge 62, sexual violation by rape of ET. I note from the outset the context to this charge. It is one of two rapes that took place during several visits Mr Williams and Ms Rose made to ET and N’s home. In that sense it occurred as part of a sequence of offending. In my Reasons for Verdict, I recorded that the offending occurred on one or other of 5 October or 29 December 2018. I note, however, this is not recorded in the Summary of Facts.
[83] There are several culpability assessment factors present to a moderate and high degree that justify this offending attracting a sentence at the highest end of band four.
[84] First, the victim was extremely vulnerable being only three years of age. She was still wearing nappies.
[85] Second, the breach of trust involved in the offending was significant. The victim’s mother was a good friend of Ms Rose and had been a confidante and friend to Mr Williams at times. The entirety of the offending occurred in the victim’s own home. If it took place on 29 December then it was while N was also in the house, distracted by Ms Rose. She had no reason to suspect any such activity. She had no reason to distrust either offender. The rape was brazen on the part of Mr Williams and Ms Rose’s role grossly manipulative.
[86] If, by contrast, the offending occurred on 5 October, then it was in the context of the parties’ premeditated plan to remove ET’s mother from the property. It is difficult to conceive of a greater breach of trust on the part of either offender.
[87]Third, the multiple offenders factor is engaged.
[88] Fourth, the scale of offending, and degree of violation, are also factors present to a moderate degree. Although the degree of violation may have been modest, in that penile penetration was restricted to the labia majora only, the offending was accompanied by various other forms of violation, including digital and oral penetration. Failing to bring that to account would result in an inaccurate picture of the overall context and scale of the offending. Further, the offending was recorded on film. This added a particularly degrading feature to what occurred.
[89] By reference to these factors I assess Mr Williams’ culpability to be at the highest level. I agree that an appropriate starting point is 20 years’ imprisonment in that respect.
[90] The Crown also proposes a starting point of 20 years for Ms Rose. Mr Morgan demurs. As with Mr Williams, no lead charge is identified, rather both the Crown and Mr Morgan group the sexual violation charges together as collective lead charges. Mr Morgan submits a starting point of 16 years is appropriate for Ms Rose in recognition that “jointly culpable does not mean equally culpable”.
[91] On the lead charge of the rape of ET, Ms Rose was found guilty as a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. Although not the violator, she actively enabled Mr Williams’ offending whether this occurred on 5 October or 29 December 2018.
[92] Like ET’s mother I consider that the extent of Ms Rose’s manipulations and her breach of trust mark the offending out as every bit as serious as that of Mr Williams. However, I am obliged in assessing her culpability to take into account the evidence of Dr Dean, to which I have previously referred. Such was her fragility in terms of psychiatric profile (involving dependent personality disorder, post- traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression) that she was particularly susceptible, in my view, to the role of accomplice to Mr Williams’ offending. Criminal legal responsibility is, as the cases recognise, a juridical response to an offender’s willed choice to offend.40 Where mental health has a causative impact on culpability it is appropriately recognised as a deduction from any provisional starting point. This is in my view such a case. Because of her gross insecurities she was drawn into a web of offending which, but for her association with Mr Williams, is in my view unlikely to have occurred. I intend to recognise this feature. Although adopting a provisional starting point of likewise 20 years I reduce it to 17 years on this accoung.
Uplifts
[93] In respect of Mr Williams the Crown contends and Mr Nabney agrees that an uplift from the 20 year starting point of six years is necessary to recognise the other
55 charges he faces. I consider that appropriate having regard to his overall criminality. For convenience only I will attach that uplift (ultimately discounted for personal factors) to charge 68—his possession of some thousands of objectionable images involving the exploitation of children other than the named complainants. That offence of itself attracts a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. The level of offending in that respect was again extreme. It took Crown witness Ms Ashdown five months full and part time analysing the evidence, such was the volume of material she was, regrettably, required to view. However, as I say the uplift is designed to address the totality of his offending. Its attachment to charge 68 is simply a convenience because
40 See generally Hall v R [2021] NZCA 314 at [29].
a cumulative sentence attached to one or more charges is necessary to take the end sentence beyond the statutory maximum for charge 62.
[94]Mr Williams’ provisional sentence is therefore 26 years imprisonment.
[95] In respect of Ms Rose, Mr Morgan submits that it is unnecessary for there to be any uplift because the many charges add very little to her overall criminality. I am unable to agree but I take into account the fact that her victims were appreciably fewer than those of Mr Williams and that a considerable number of her offences were against a significantly older victim (aged nearly 14) who, as I observed, in my Reasons for Verdict, appeared willingly engaged in at least some of the sexual activities for which Ms Rose was solely charged. I consider an uplift of three years appropriate.
[96]Ms Rose’s provisional sentence is therefore 20 years’ imprisonment.
[97] In Ms Rose’s case the requirement to attach the uplift to a particular charge on a cumulative basis does not arise because her end sentence will be less than the statutory maximum on charge 62. All offences, apart from charge 62 can therefore be dealt with on a concurrent sentencing basis.
Mitigating features
Mr Williams
[98] Mr Williams entered guilty pleas to all charges on the first day of trial. The plea was late but has to be considered against the significant consolidation of charges (originally in excess of 200) which occurred in the week before trial. I also take into account that, however late the plea may have been, it carried with it a public acceptance of responsibility on his part. As the Victim Impact Statement for ET’s mother recognises, acceptance of responsibility has a significant impact on the healing process, something ET’s mother was denied in respect of Ms Rose’s offending.41 I also accept that his pleas resulted in a reduction of trial length—generally and specifically in respect of the time necessary to establish offences in respect of which
41 Ms Rose’s guilty pleas related to offending against JR only. She was convicted on charges in respect of ET, except for charge 68 involving possession of objectionable publications.
Ms Rose was not jointly charged. I may err slightly on the generous side, but in these circumstances I allow a 10 per cent deduction for the guilty pleas.
[99] I do not allow a good character deduction despite the fact that this is the first time Mr Williams has appeared before a criminal court. The offending was too extensive and over too long a period of time to ever describe him as a person once of good character who has fallen spectacularly from grace.
[100] In the result, Mr Williams’ sentence reduces to 23 years five months’ imprisonment.
Ms Rose
[101] Mr Morgan submits discounts are appropriate for Ms Rose’s time spent on EM bail, personal mental health issues, assistance to police and the delay in sentencing.
[102] I do not consider Ms Rose’s assistance warrants a discrete discount. It was minimal, relating only to identification of the complainant TC in respect of whom a prosecution of Mr Williams was always available based on the photographic record.
[103] Mental health discounts can be given at two separate points in the sentencing process, either “above the line” where mental health impacts on culpability, or “below the line” where there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health or will otherwise weigh more heavily on them than on a person in normal health.
[104] Mr Morgan’s submissions focus appropriately, in my view, on the implications of her mental health in terms of culpability. These have already been recognised. Despite her various mental health issues it is not established that imprisonment will be any more onerous for her than others whose crimes similarly attract custodial sentences.
[105] In respect of time spent on electronically monitored bail (“EM bail”), I agree that a discount is appropriate having regard to ss 9(2)(h) and 9(3A) of the Sentencing Act. Section 9(3A) now provides that the Court must take into account “the time spent
on bail with an EM condition, the relative restrictiveness of that condition, the offender's compliance with that condition, and any other relevant matter”.42 Ms Rose’s total period of EM bail was one year.
[106] Court of Appeal authorities have recognised discounts ranging between 30 to 50 per cent of the actual time spend on EM bail.43 In Kara v R44 the Court of Appeal accepted that a three month discount in recognition of 11 months spent on EM bail was within range. In Chea v R the Court held a four month or 31 percent discount was appropriate for 13 months spent on EM bail.45 In Huata v R the High Court considered Court of Appeal authority and found that a five month discount for 15 months spent on EM bail was within range.46
[107] In this case the conditions of EM bail were strict to the point even that Ms Rose was refused an exemption to visit her terminally ill grandfather in hospital. Although an application to the Court was made he passed away before it could be heard. She was, however, subsequently allowed to work for up to four hours a day. Her compliance with EM bail is acknowledged.
[108] I consider in this case a discount of five months, or a little over 40 per cent of the period spent on EM bail, is appropriate.
[109] I also allow a further discrete discount of two months to reflect the fact that this sentencing has been unnecessarily delayed while reports in relation to Mr Williams were obtained. As a result, Ms Rose has, for six months, had the status of a remand prisoner only, confined to her cell for 23 hours per day and unable to be inducted into any programmes which may assist her rehabilitation or to be engaged in prison related activities. This is unfortunate and it is not her fault.
[110] In the result Ms Rose’s sentence reduces to 19 years five months’ imprisonment.
42 Kara v R [2013] NZCA 527 at [20].
43 Huata v R [2017] NZHC 2833 at [30].
44 Kara v R, above n 43, at [20].
45 Chea v R [2016] NZCA 207 at [109]-[111].
46 Huata v R, above n 44, at [30].
Minimum period of imprisonment
[111] Imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment are governed by s 86 of the Sentencing Act. Subsection 2 provides the Court with a discretion as to whether an MPI is imposed. The Court of Appeal in R v AM found that MPI’s are routinely imposed for serious sexual offending. In R v T the same Court said:47
With multiple offending as is involved here, the application of the totality principle in sentencing gives some proportionality and realism to sentences where full cumulative sentences for all separation offences would be pointless. But a consequence is that eligibility for parole after one-third of the sentence imposed often will be quite inadequate to reflect the appropriate level of punishment, deterrence or denunciation for that total offending.
[112] Were the standard parole period to apply in Mr Williams’ case, he would be eligible for parole after serving one third of his sentencing, being seven years ten months. Again, were the standard parole period to apply in Ms Rose’s case, she would be eligible for consideration for parole after serving one third of her sentence, being six years six months.
[113] However, whether an offender is eligible for parole after serving one third only of their sentence is a matter to be determined by the Parole Board. As the Court of Appeal very recently observed, the Parole Board is required to make its decision:48
…in accordance with the guiding principles contained in s 7 of the Parole Act 2002, which stipulates that the paramount consideration for the Parole Board in every case is the safety of the community. The appellant’s rehabilitation and progress towards developing insight into his offending, and the assessment of the risk he would pose to the community if released, are matters falling within the specialist expertise of the Parole Board.
[114] In that case, which also involved sexual offending (as well as kidnapping), the Court decided that the matter was best left for determination by the Parole Board.
[115] Here both defence counsel submit, correctly in my view, that it cannot sensibly be suggested that either of their clients will be released after one third of their sentence. To the contrary, the likelihood is that the Parole Board will only start to consider updated psychological assessments and any further treatment requirements when they
47 R v T (2002) 20 CRNZ 51 (CA) at 51.
48 Cash v R [2021] NZCA 369 at [37].
become first eligible for parole. It cannot be predicted now what such assessments will indicate or what further treatment options may mitigate the risk of further offending. The Parole Board’s paramount consideration will be the safety of the community and until such time as treatment options and post release conditions in combination ensure that outcome, neither offender can be expected to be released before completion of their stipulated sentences.
[116] Nevertheless the offending in this case so grossly violated society’s norms that, in my view, some measure of additional denunciation and deterrence is required at this point in the sentencing process. As I have observed, in the case of very serious sexual offending the Courts have routinely recognised such an approach and in this case the harm inflicted on the offenders’ victims is so palpable that they must in my view be held to additional account in this respect. In respect of both Mr Williams and Ms Rose I impose an MPI of 40 per cent.
[117]Ms Rose and Mr Williams, will you now please stand.
Strike Warning
[118] I am now at the point of imposing your sentences, but before doing so I am obliged to give you a warning under what is called the Three Strikes Legislation.
[119] Mr Williams, given your convictions for rape, sexual violation, indecencies on a child and indecencies on a young person, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences, which lists the ‘serious violence offences’.
[120] If you are convicted on any serious violence offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.
[121] If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be
manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
[122] Ms Rose, given your convictions for rape, sexual violation, indecencies on a child and indecencies on a young person, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences, which lists the ‘serious violence offences’.
[123] If you are convicted on any serious violence offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.
[124] If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.
Result
[125] Mr Williams, you are sentenced to 23 years and five months’ imprisonment with an MPI of nine years and four months.
[126] Ms Rose, you are sentenced to 19 years and five months’ imprisonment, with an MPI of seven years nine months.
[127] The specific allocation of these sentences to the various charges to which you have pleaded or been found guilty and characterisation of the sentences as concurrent or cumulative is contained in a schedule annexed to these sentencing notes but because sentencing is a public function I must necessarily reference all charges in that schedule now. Before doing so I note, however, that you have both qualified for and will accordingly be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.
Charge No Description CRN Offender Sentence 1 Attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 129 and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503331
19063503332
Williams
Rose
3 years
concurrent 3 years
concurrent
2 Attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 129 and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503333
19063503334
Williams
Rose
3 years
concurrent 3 years
concurrent
3 Indecent assault on a child under 12. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19070002453
19070002456
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
4 Indecent assault on a child under 12. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503343
19063503345
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
5 Indecent assault on a child under 12. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503346
19063503347
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
6 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19070002454
19070002457
Williams
Rose
12 years
concurrent 12 years
concurrent
7 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503403
19063503404
Williams
Rose
12 years
concurrent 12 years
concurrent
8 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503406
19063503405
Williams
Rose
12 years
concurrent 12 years
concurrent
9 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 123(1)(a) and 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19070004499
19070004373
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
10 Possession of objectionable material. Sections 131A(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19063503412
19063503413
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
11 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B Crimes Act 1961.
19063503419 Williams 4 years
concurrent
12 Indecent assault on a child under 12. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503420
19063503421
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
13 Inducing an indecent act on a child under 12.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503424
19063503423
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
Charge No Description CRN Offender Sentence 14 Indecent assault on a child under 12. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503425
19063503426
Williams
Rose
4 years
concurrent
4 years
concurrent
15 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 123(1)(a) and 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.19063503431
19063503430
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
16 Possession of objectionable material. Sections 131A(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19063503436 Williams 2 years 6 months
concurrent
17 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19070004381 Rose 4 years
concurrent
18 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503451 Rose 4 years
concurrent
20 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19054001926
19054001927
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
21 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503455 Rose 4 years
concurrent
24 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503459 Rose 4 years
concurrent
25 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503460 Rose 4 years
concurrent
26 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503464 Rose 4 years
concurrent
27 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503467 Rose 4 years
concurrent
28 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503470 Rose 4 years
concurrent
31 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503456
19063503477
Williams
Rose
11 years
concurrent 11 years
concurrent
32 Indecent assault on a young person. Sections 134(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503479
19063503478
Williams
Rose
1 year
concurrent 1 year
concurrent
34 Induced a young person to commit an indecent act.
Section 134(3) Crimes Act 1961.
19063503487 Rose 4 years
concurrent
36 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 123(1)(a) and 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19054003186
19070004374
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
Charge No Description CRN Offender Sentence 37 Possession of objectionable material. Sections 131A(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19063503516
19063503515
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
38 Did an indecent act on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19019004767 Williams 4 years
concurrent
39 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19019007191 Williams 16 years
concurrent
40 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 123(1)(a) and 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993.
19019007192 Williams 4 months concurrent 41 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19019007193
19070004377
Williams
Rose
20 years
concurrent 17 years
concurrent
42 Did an indecent act on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503522
19063503521
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
43 Induced an indecent act from a child. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503524
19063503523
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
44 Induced an indecent act from a child. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503526
19063503525
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
45 Induced an indecent act from a child. Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503527
19063503528
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
46 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503545
19063503546
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
47 Indecently assaulted a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503547
19063503548
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
48 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503596
19063503595
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
49 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503597
19063503598
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
50 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503600
19063503599
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
51 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503607
19063503608
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
Charge No Description CRN Offender Sentence 52 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503613
19063503614
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
53 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503617
19063503618
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
54 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503620
19063503619
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
55 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503644
20063506689
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
56 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503645
20063506690
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
57 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503648
20063506691
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
58 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503649
20063506692
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
59 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503652
20063506693
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
60 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503656
20063506694
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
61 Attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 129 and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503658
20063506695
Williams
Rose
7 years
concurrent 7 years
concurrent
62 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503661
20063506696
Williams
Rose
20 years
19 years 5 months
63 Indecent assault on a child.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503854
19063503855
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
64 Indecent assault on a child. Sections132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961. 19063503916
19063503915
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
65 Induced an indecent act.
Sections 132(3) and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503926
19063503925
Williams
Rose
6 years
concurrent 6 years
concurrent
66 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503922
19063503923
Williams
Rose
15 years
concurrent 15 years
concurrent
Charge No Description CRN Offender Sentence 67 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. As a representative charge.
19019007194
19070004378
Williams
Rose
2 years 6 months
concurrent 2 years 6 months
concurrent
68 Possession of objectionable material. Sections 131A(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19019007195 Williams 3 years 5 months
cumulative
69 Sexual violation by rape.
Sections 128(1)(a), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503937 Williams 10 years
concurrent
70 Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
Sections 128(1)(b), 128B and 66 Crimes Act 1961.
19063503938 Williams 4 years
concurrent
71 Knowingly made an objectionable publication.
Sections 124(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. As a representative charge.
19063503936 Williams 2 years 6 months
concurrent
72 Possession of objectionable material. Sections 131A(1) and (2)(a) Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.
As a representative charge.
19063503935 Williams 2 years 6 months
concurrent
[128] You will appreciate that in respect to Mr Williams there is a mixture of concurrent sentencing and one cumulative sentence. In respect of Ms Rose the sentences are all concurrent. The net result is, as I have indicated, a sentence for Mr Williams of 23 years five months’ imprisonment with an MPI of nine years and four months, for Ms Rose of 19 years five months’ imprisonment with an MPI of seven years and nine months.
[129]That concludes my sentencing remarks. You may stand down.
Muir J
2
8
0