R v Rose - [2021] NZHC 2110

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…

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 Rose

Details

AGLC: R v Rose [2021] NZHC 2110
Case: [2021] NZHC 2110
Decision Date: 13 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved the sentencing of two defendants, Laken Maree Rose and Andrew Alan Williams, for their involvement in a series of sexual offences against children. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offending, the vulnerability of the victims, and the role each defendant played in the offending. The court also considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court found that the offending was of the most serious nature and that the defendants' culpability was high, resulting in starting points of 20 years for Williams and 17 years for Rose. The court imposed uplifts for the totality of the offending, resulting in provisional sentences of 26 years for Williams and 20 years for Rose. The court then applied mitigating features, such as guilty pleas and time spent on electronically monitored bail, resulting in final sentences of 23 years and five months for Williams and 19 years and five months for Rose, both with minimum periods of imprisonment. The court also imposed a requirement for both defendants to be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.

Orders