R v Snowden - [2012] NZHC 604

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-085-7663

CRI-2012-485-1 [2012] NZHC 604

THE QUEEN

v

TREVOR WILLIAM SNOWDEN

Hearing: 7-10, 13 February 2012
15-16 February 2012

Counsel: I Murray and J Ongley for the Crown
G King for Trevor Snowden

Sentence: 16 March 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Snowden, you are here for sentence on 17 counts of sexual offending in the 1970s and 80s. Fifteen of these counts relate to two brothers, the older of the two I will refer to as complainant A and the younger as complainant B. The remaining two counts relate to a third complainant, who I will refer to as complainant C. You were convicted on these counts following two jury trials in Wellington in February this year. The first jury trial related to the offending on the two brothers. The
second trial related to the offending on complainant C.1

1 This trial was heard separately from the trial relating to the two brothers as a result of a pre-trial ruling confirmed by the Court of Appeal: R v S [2011] NZCA 612.
R v SNOWDEN HC WN CRI-2010-085-7663 CRI-2012-485-1 [16 March 2012]

a) Two counts of sodomy on a boy under 16, one of which is representative: the maximum penalty that applies on each of these counts is 14 years’ imprisonment.

b)Two counts of doing an indecent act with a boy under 16 (namely performing oral sex on him), one of which is representative: the maximum penalty that applies on these counts is 10 years’ imprisonment.

c) One representative count of inducing a boy under 16 to do an indecent act (namely to masturbate you): the maximum penalty that applies on this count is 7 years’ imprisonment.

d)Two representative counts of indecent assault (one for performing anal intercourse on the complainant and the other for performing oral sex on him): the maximum penalty that applies on these counts is
5 years’ imprisonment.

[3] In relation to complainant B you are to be sentenced on the following:

a) One count of sodomy on a boy under 16: the maximum penalty that

applies on this count is 14 years’ imprisonment.

b)Four counts of doing an indecent act with a boy under 16 (namely performing oral sex on him), one of which is representative: the maximum penalty that applies on each of these counts is 10 years’ imprisonment.

c) Two counts of inducing a boy under 16 to do an indecent act (one for inducing the complainant to perform oral sex on you; the other a representative count for inducing the complainant to masturbate you): the maximum penalty that applies on these counts are 10 and 7 years’ respectively.

d)One representative count of indecent assault (namely performing oral sex on him): the maximum penalty that applies on this count is
5 years’ imprisonment.

[4] In respect of complainant C you are to…

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 Snowden

Details

AGLC: R v Snowden [2012] NZHC 604
Case: [2012] NZHC 604
Decision Date: 16 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Trevor William Snowden, the defendant was convicted on 17 counts of sexual offending against three complainants spanning from the 1970s to the 1980s. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided over the sentencing of Snowden, who was found guilty following two jury trials in February of the same year. The legal issues the court had to address included determining the appropriate maximum penalties for the charges, considering the historic nature of the charges, and assessing the totality of the offending and personal mitigating factors. The court determined the maximum penalties based on the laws at the time of the offending and applied sentencing patterns from that era. The court also considered the impact of the historic nature of the charges on sentencing.

The court found that the defendant's lack of remorse and empathy for his victims, as well as his denial of the severity of his actions, were significant factors in determining the sentence. The court considered the defendant's age and health as mitigating factors but ultimately decided that these factors did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence. The court sentenced Snowden to an overall term of 7½ years' imprisonment, with certain sentences running concurrently. The court allocated the sentences to the specific charges, taking into account the severity and frequency of the offending.

Orders