R v Rutherford

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of the Crown versus Grahame John Rutherford was heard on 12 July 2019. Mr Rutherford was convicted of doing an indecent act on a child, having pleaded guilty to the charge. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence under the three-strikes regime, which mandates a maximum term of imprisonment for a third-strike offence. The court also needed to assess whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence without parole.

The court began by considering the appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account the facts of the case and relevant precedents. The court found the offending in this case to be less serious than in previous cases and considered a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment appropriate. The court then adjusted the starting point by adding six months to reflect Mr Rutherford's criminal history and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that Mr Rutherford would have been entitled to a 25% discount for his early guilty plea, which would have resulted in a sentence of approximately 14 months' imprisonment.

The court then assessed whether the lack of eligibility for parole under the three-strikes regime would be manifestly unjust in this case. The court considered the nature and seriousness of Mr Rutherford's previous offences, as well as his risk of reoffending and potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that imposing a sentence of 10 years without parole would be manifestly unjust, as it would significantly delay the commencement of rehabilitation programmes, potentially creating adverse consequences for the community in the longer term.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr Rutherford to 10 years' imprisonment but did not order that this sentence be served without parole, as the court was satisfied that to do so would be manifestly unjust. The defendant's particulars were entered on the Child Protection Register given he has been subject to a sentence of imprisonment.