R v Sadler - [2017] NZHC 2903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-004-009701 [2017] NZHC 2903

THE QUEEN

v

TRAVIS JAMES SADLER DUANE ROGER KEIL

Hearing: 24 November 2017

Appearances:

B R Northwood for Crown
T A Fitzgibbon for D R Keil
S R Lack and R M Mansfield for T J Sadler

Judgment:

24 November 2017

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland (T Fitzgibbon)
R M Mansfield and S R Lack, Barristers, Auckland

R v SADLER AND KEIL [2017] NZHC 2903 [24 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Travis Sadler and Mr Duane Keil have been charged with corruption and bribery of a Serco guard at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility, under s 105(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. They pleaded guilty and were convicted on 24 and 26 October 2017. The offence of corruption and bribery of an official carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] Three other defendants were also charged in relation to this offending.

Ms Dufresne pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced on 23 May 2017. The charges against another defendant were dismissed. Mr Faapoi, the prison guard, pleaded guilty to six charges and comes up for sentencing on 1 December 2017.

[3] I am to sentence Mr Sadler and Mr Keil today. I will do that in four parts:

(a) First, I mention the purposes and principles of sentencing.

(b) Second, I go through what happened here, in general terms.

(c) Third, I set a starting point for sentencing each offender based on the offending here compared with other cases.1

(d)Fourth, for each offender, I consider any adjustments for aggravating or mitigating factors based on personal circumstances or guilty pleas.

Part 1 Approach to sentencing

[4] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). For offences of this nature, the Court of Appeal has emphasised the importance of deterring offenders from committing similar offences in the future.2 In addition I have particular regard to the
purposes of:

1 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA); Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.
2 Ram v R CA23/94, 16 March 1994.

(a) holding offenders accountable for the harm done to the community;

(b)promoting in the offenders a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of that harm;

(c) protecting the community; and

(d) promoting your rehabilitation and reintegration.

[5] I am also required to take into account principles of sentencing such as:

(a) the gravity of the offending, the degree of your culpability and the seriousness of the offending;

(b)the importance of consistency in dealing with similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances;

(c) the effect of the offending on the community; and

(d)the requirement that I must impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

Part 2 What happened?

[6] Now, I outline the facts…

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 Sadler

Details

AGLC: R v Sadler [2017] NZHC 2903
Case: [2017] NZHC 2903
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Travis Sadler and Mr Duane Keil were convicted of corruption and bribery of a Serco guard at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Both pleaded guilty and were sentenced on 24 November 2017. The key legal issue was determining the appropriate starting points for sentencing each defendant, considering the gravity of the offending, the degree of culpability, and the seriousness of the offending. The court also considered adjustments for aggravating or mitigating factors, such as previous convictions and guilty pleas. The starting point for Mr Sadler’s sentencing was set at two years’ imprisonment, taking into account his premeditated and sophisticated offending, and the systemic effects on the justice system. Mr Keil’s starting point was set at 18 months’ imprisonment, reflecting his involvement in the offending and the number of charges against him. Adjustments to the starting points were made based on personal circumstances and guilty pleas. Mr Sadler’s sentence was uplifted by six months due to his previous convictions and offending while serving a sentence. Mr Keil’s sentence was uplifted by six months for his previous convictions. Both defendants received a discount for their guilty pleas, with Mr Sadler receiving a three-month discount and Mr Keil receiving a two-month discount. Mr Sadler was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his existing sentence. Mr Keil was sentenced to 11 months’ home detention, with conditions including residing at a specified address and abstaining from alcohol and drugs.

Orders