R v Senior - [2015] NZHC 236

PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-406-10 [2015] NZHC 236

THE QUEEN

v

ARTHUR SAMUEL ROY SENIOR

Judgment:: 20 February 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Arthur Samuel Roy Senior, you appear for sentencing on two counts of rape,1

10 counts of unlawful sexual connection,2 one count of attempted rape,3 one count of sexual grooming,4 seven counts of indecent assault,5 eight counts of making an indecent publication,6 and six counts of supplying a Class C drug to a person under 18.7 You were found guilty by the jury in December 2014 following your trial. You were acquitted on a further 11 counts.

[2] Your offending spans a period of about 25 years and relates to nine complainants. There was a tenth complainant at your trial, but you were acquitted on
all counts relating to her.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B.
2      Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B (nine counts); s 134(1) (one count).
3      Section 129(1).
4      Section 131B(1).
5      Section 134(2)(a) (three counts); s 134(3) (three counts); s 135 (one count).
6      Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993, ss 123(1)(a) and 124.
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(d) and (2).

R v SENIOR [2015] NZHC 236 [20 February 2015]

[3] I describe your offending briefly. The victims fall into three broad categories. The first was a young girl, aged 12 to 15 at the time, whom you indecently assaulted. Your boat and her family’s boat were moored together in Queen Charlotte Sound in a holiday period sometime between 1984 and 1986. You contrived an opportunity to be alone with her in your boat for a short time, and indecently assaulted her, over her clothing.

[4] The second group of complainants, against whom you offended between

1993 and 1998, were the daughter of a woman with whom you were living, and her school friend. You regularly visited the daughter, who was aged nine to 12 at the time, in her bedroom when she was asleep and indecently assaulted her. Those assaults escalated to sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, by digital penetration and oral sex. On occasions when her school friend, aged 12 to 13 at the time, stayed overnight, you indecently assaulted her, and had unlawful sexual connection with her by digital penetration, on two occasions.

[5] The third and largest group of complainants are six young girls, all aged between 14 and 16 years of age, against whom you offended over a period between
2010 and 2012, when your offending was disclosed. They have somewhat similar backgrounds. They are from broken homes, without a close supportive relationship with parents or other adult role models. You targeted and preyed on victims with these characteristics. You groomed them by befriending them, giving them gifts and money, letting them drive your vehicles, intended to make them feel they owed you something in return. You took…

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 Senior

Details

AGLC: R v Senior [2015] NZHC 236
Case: [2015] NZHC 236
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur Samuel Roy Senior was convicted on multiple counts of sexual offences, including rape, unlawful sexual connection, attempted rape, sexual grooming, indecent assault, making indecent publications, and supplying Class C drugs to persons under 18. The offending spanned approximately 25 years and involved nine complainants, with a tenth complainant being acquitted on all counts. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentencing for these serious sexual offences, taking into account the various culpability factors, the harm caused to the victims, and any mitigating factors.

The court assessed the culpability factors, including planning and premeditation, vulnerability of the victims, breach of trust, and the scale and period of the offending. The court also considered the harm caused to the victims, which was significant and long-lasting. The other offending, such as the supply of drugs and taking indecent photographs, was closely related to the sexual offences and was taken into account in fixing the starting point for the sentence. The court fixed a starting point of 16 years in band 3 of the unlawful sexual connection bands, considering the totality of the offending. The court made a limited reduction from the starting point to account for Senior's difficulty in comprehending the boundaries of entering into intimate relationships with young women, resulting in an end sentence of 15 years. The court also imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of one half of the sentence, considering the number of victims and the nature of the offending.

The final orders of the court were that Senior was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each of the counts of rape and unlawful sexual connection, to 4 years imprisonment on the count of attempted rape, to 2 years imprisonment on the counts of sexual grooming, to 3 years imprisonment on each of the counts of indecent assault, to 4 years imprisonment on each of the counts of making an indecent publication, and to 6 months imprisonment on each of the counts of supplying a Class C drug. All of these terms were to be served concurrently.

Orders