R v SLT - [2015] NZHC 938

PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY
S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PRISONER OR CO-OFFENDERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2014-020-146 [2015] NZHC 938

THE QUEEN

v

SLT

Hearing: 6 May 2015

Appearances:

F Cleary for the Crown
AJS Snell for the Prisoner

Sentence:

6 May 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v SLT [2015] NZHC 938 [6 May 2015]

[1] I make a permanent order for non-publication of the prisoner’s name and any information that might identify him or his co-offenders or any other member of the family. The order is made solely to support the statutory prohibition against identifying the victims.

[2] SLT, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to seventeen charges of sexual offending, most of them representative. They include one charge of rape, two of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, four of indecent assault on a child, five of incest, four of being a party to sexual conduct with a young person, and one of conspiracy to commit incest.

[3] Seven of the representative charges relate to your conduct with your daughter K before she attained the age of 12 years. Three representative charges relate to your conduct with K after she turned 12. One non-representative charge relates to your conduct with K when she was 12. Four representative charges relate to your conduct as a party to C’s offending with K. One relates to a conspiracy between you and another daughter H for having sexual contact with K. The final charge is one of incest with H.

Charge Section
Maximum

penalty

1
Indecent assault on a child under 12

(representative)
By touching K’s breasts

132(3)

Crimes Act
10 years

2
Indecent assault on a child under 12

(representative)
By having K masturbate him

132(3)

Crimes Act
10 years

3
Indecent assault on a child under 12

(representative)
By kissing K on the mouth

132(3)

Crimes Act
10 years

4
Indecent assault on a child under 12

(representative)
By removing K’s clothing and being naked with
her

132(3)

Crimes Act
10 years

5
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

(representative)
Digital penetration of K’s genitalia

128(1)(b)

Crimes Act
20 years

6
Sexual violation by rape

(representative)

128(1)(a)

Crimes Act
20 years

7
Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

(representative)
Penetration of K’s anus with penis

128(1)(b)

Crimes Act
20 years

8
Incest (representative)

Digital penetration of K’s genitalia

130(1)

Crimes Act
10 years

9
Incest (representative)

Intercourse

130(1)

Crimes Act
10 years

10
Incest (representative)

Penetration of K’s anus with penis

130(1)

Crimes Act
10 years

11
Incest

Intercourse

130(1)

Crimes Act
10 years

12
Party to sexual connection with a young person

under 16 (representative)
Digital penetration by C of K’s genitalia

134(1), 66(1)

Crimes Act
10 years

13
Party to sexual conduct with a young person

under 16 (representative)
Penetration by C of K’s genitalia with sex toy

134(1), 66(1)

Crimes Act

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 SLT

Details

AGLC: R v SLT [2015] NZHC 938
Case: [2015] NZHC 938
Decision Date: 6 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SLT was heard by Toogood J in the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry. The defendant, SLT, pleaded guilty to seventeen charges of sexual offending against his daughters, including rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, indecent assault on a child, incest, and conspiracy to commit incest. The court issued a permanent order for non-publication of the prisoner's name and any information that might identify him or his co-offenders or any other member of the family. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding the defendant accountable for the harm done to his victims, denouncing his conduct, deterring him and others from offending in this way, protecting the community from him, and assisting in his rehabilitation and reintegration. The court determined a starting point of 17½ years' imprisonment on the lead charges of unlawful sexual connection and rape, and uplifted the starting point by six months to account for the incest charge against H. The court imposed a total effective end sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, of which the defendant shall serve at least 8½ years. The court also considered the need to impose the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances, but deemed a lengthy sentence necessary to reflect the factors discussed, including the nature, extent, frequency, and duration of the offending, the vulnerability of the victims, the breach of trust, and the severe harm caused to others. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 8½ years on the lead offences. All of the sentences are to be served concurrently, at the same time, meaning that the total effective end sentence is one of 16 years' imprisonment of which the defendant shall serve at least 8½ years.

Orders