R v Taylor - [2018] NZHC 2170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2018-063-000085

[2018] NZHC 2170

THE QUEEN

v

KALLY JOSEPH TAYLOR

Counsel; D R Davies and E R Pairman for Crown T C Thackery for Defendant

Sentence:

23 August 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]Mr Taylor, you appear for sentencing on the following charges:

(1)one charge of aggravated robbery;1

(2)one charge of indecent assault;2

(3)two charges of kidnapping;3

(4)one charge of attempted rape;4

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 135; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 209; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 129(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v TAYLOR [2018] NZHC 2170 [23 August 2018]

(5)one charge of rape;5

(6)one charge of unlawful sexual connection;6 and

(7)one charge of robbery.7

[2]This afternoon I will:

(1)set out your offending;

(2)explain the impact of your offending on the victim;

(3)explain your previous offending and personal circumstances;

(4)ascertain the appropriate determinate sentence;

(5)explain the effect of the three strikes regime;

(6)determine whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention; and

(7)give you your final sentence.

Summary of offending

[3] The victim of your offending is a 71-year-old woman who lives alone in Palmerston North. You had never met the victim before the events of 13 October 2017.

October 2017 offending

[4] On 13 October 2017, at about 9.20 am, the victim was working in her backyard when you came onto the property armed with a knife. You grabbed the victim and held the blade to her face to make her go into her house with you. Once inside you told her to hand over her bank cards. She took one from her handbag and gave it to

5      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a) and 128B; maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 128(1)(b) and 128B; maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
7      Section 234; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

you. She also responded to your demands when she wrote her PIN on a piece of cardboard. You then took her into the bedroom and blindfolded her with a scarf, and used two other scarves to gag her and bind her hands in front of her.

[5] You then pushed the victim back onto the bed and forced her legs apart, before you put your head between them, smelling her vagina.

[6] You then got up and used another scarf to tie the victim’s legs together. You made her sit in a chair and bound her hands to the seatback, after pulling her arms up and backwards over her head. You also wrapped a scarf around her neck and tied that to the back of the seat.

[7] You went looking for the victim’s car keys but could not find them. After you emptied her handbag onto the bed, she told you about a spare set hanging up in the kitchen. You found the keys, went to the garage and stole the…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2018] NZHC 2170
Case: [2018] NZHC 2170
Decision Date: 23 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Kally Joseph Taylor, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for multiple charges of sexual violence and robbery against an elderly woman. The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, and the defendant's extensive history of criminal behaviour. The court found that the defendant posed a significant risk to the community, particularly to vulnerable elderly women, and that a lengthy determinate sentence would not provide adequate protection. Therefore, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention, which will keep the defendant incarcerated until it is determined that he no longer poses a threat to the community. The defendant will serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years for the most serious charges, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The defendant will also be subject to strict terms and conditions if he is ever released back into society.

Orders