R v Sehgal - [2018] NZHC 1145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-3680

[2018] NZHC 1145

THE QUEEN

v

AVNEESH SEHGAL

Hearing: 22 May 2018

Appearances:

N E Walker and K S Li for Crown G Newell for Defendant

Judgment:

22 May 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v SEHGAL [2018] NZHC 1145 [22 May 2018]

[1] Mr Sehgal, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges of dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for sexual exploitation.1 That charge carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by a person under the age of 18 years.2 That charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.

Background

[2] I sentence you on the basis of a summary of facts that you do not dispute. This records that the victim of your offending arrived in New Zealand in April 2014. The victim’s mother was on a visitor’s visa, and this expired whilst she remained in New Zealand. From that point on the victim and her family were overstayers in New Zealand.

[3] Initially the family lived in Whangarei but subsequently moved to Auckland. There they resided at several addresses between 2014 and 2016. You became involved in a relationship with the victim’s mother during 2015. This resulted in you moving in to live with the victim and her family in mid-2015. During this period you were providing the victim’s mother and the remaining members of the family with financial support.

[4] Shortly before the victim’s fifteenth birthday, her mother told the victim she would be required to engage in prostitution so that the family could meet its needs. The victim was initially told that this would be for a limited period only. Reasonably elaborate preparations were then made for this to occur. The victim was required to undergo a series of photographic shoots at which she was photographed in provocative clothing and poses. Advertisements were then placed in three publications in which the victim was advertised as being available for sexual services for reward. She was depicted in these advertisements under a false name and a false age.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 98AA(1)(a)(i) and 98AA(1)(e)(i).
2 Prostitution Reform Act 2003, ss 21 and 23.

[5] The victim’s first client was on her fifteenth birthday. Over the next 18 months the summary records that the victim had sex for reward on approximately 1,000 occasions. On some occasions she was required to have sex with clients multiple times during the course of a day.

[6] During the initial stages, the clients would come to the victim’s family home where sexual services would be provided to clients. Subsequently, however, the family moved to an apartment and it was no longer possible for clients to visit the victim at her home. Thereafter, she would travel to see clients either at their homes or at motel…

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 Sehgal

Details

AGLC: R v Sehgal [2018] NZHC 1145
Case: [2018] NZHC 1145
Decision Date: 22 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sehgal involved the sentencing of Avneesh Sehgal, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for sexual exploitation and receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by a person under the age of 18 years. The maximum penalties for these offences were 14 and 7 years imprisonment, respectively. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Sehgal, considering various legal issues, including the starting point for sentencing, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment.

The court began by establishing a starting point for sentencing, taking into account the overall culpability of Sehgal and the need for his sentence to be broadly comparable to that of his co-defendant, the victim's mother. The court considered several aggravating factors, including the significant degree of planning and premeditation involved in the offending, the vulnerability of the victim, the gross breach of trust committed by Sehgal, the length and frequency of the offending, and the financial gain obtained from the exploitation. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Sehgal's good character prior to the offending, his age, and his guilty pleas. Based on these factors, the court determined a starting point of five years and nine months imprisonment.

After accounting for the mitigating factors, the court arrived at an end sentence of four years and eight months imprisonment. The court also considered whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed, to ensure the sentence adequately reflected the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and accountability. The court ultimately decided to impose a minimum term of two years and four months, ensuring that Sehgal would not be eligible for parole until he had served this period.

The final orders of the court were that Sehgal be sentenced to four years and eight months imprisonment on each charge of dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for sexual exploitation, to be served concurrently, and to two years and six months imprisonment on the charge of receiving earnings from commercial sexual services, also to be served concurrently. Sehgal was also ordered to serve a minimum term of two years and four months imprisonment on each of the charges of dealing in a person under the age of 18 years for sexual exploitation before being eligible to apply for parole.

Orders