R v Taylor - [2013] NZHC 3017

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-029-1019 [2013] NZHC 3017

THE QUEEN

v

DANIEL LUKE TAYLOR

Hearing: 14 November 2013

Appearances: C A Anderson for the Crown
A Fairley for Mr Taylor

Sentence: 14 November 2013

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Ms C A Anderson, Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Mr A Fairley, Thomson Wilson, Solicitors, Whangarei

R v TAYLOR [2013] NZHC 3017 [14 November 2013]

[1] Mr Taylor, you may be seated until I come to formally sentence you.

[2] Mr Taylor, you appear for sentence for nine sexual offences against five young boys.

The offences

[3] You pleaded guilty to one charge of doing an indecent act on a child under

12, five charges of doing an indecent act on a young person, one charge of attempted sexual connection with a young person, and two charges of indecent assault. Four of the charges were what are called representative charges. This means that there was a date range for the offending and that the Crown alleged that the particular offence occurred on numbers of occasions without necessarily being specific as to the particular date or occasion.

[4] The maximum penalty for attempted sexual connection with a young person is 10 years imprisonment. The maximum for actual sexual connection is also 10 years imprisonment – for the completed offence as opposed to an attempt. This is significant because with most attempts the penalty is half the penalty for the full offence.

[5] The maximum penalty for an indecent act on a child under 12 is also 10 years imprisonment.

[6] The maximum for the other offences is 7 years.

[7] These are serious offences Mr Taylor. You must understand that. And the sentence must reflect it.

The facts

[8] The names of your victims, and any information that would identify them, by law cannot be published. For this reason, and in any event to respect their privacy, I will use the letters A to E instead of their names.

[9] You pleaded guilty on the basis of a seven page summary of facts. This contains a reasonable amount of detail of what you did to each of these boys, as well as facts which aggravate your offending, such as the way in which you befriended the victims and their families, and groomed the victims by spending money on them and taking them to various places, and in other ways. I do not intend to summarise all of this. I do make clear that it has all been taken into account, and aggravating factors relating to the offences will be taken into account in determining the sentence in a way that I will explain.

[10] I will provide a brief outline of the offences following the sequence in the summary of facts. I mention that because it is not in 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 [2013] NZHC 3017
Case: [2013] NZHC 3017
Decision Date: 14 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taylor, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involves the sentencing of Daniel Luke Taylor for multiple sexual offences against five young boys. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Taylor, who pleaded guilty to nine charges including indecent acts on children under 12 and young persons, attempted sexual connection with a young person, and indecent assault. The legal issues centered around assessing the severity of the offences, the harm caused to the victims, and the appropriate sentence in light of the totality principle and the Sentencing Act. The court considered aggravating factors such as the considerable harm caused, the abuse of positions of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the premeditated nature of the offences. The court also weighed mitigating factors, including Taylor's guilty plea and his lack of previous convictions, though it found limited genuine remorse. After careful consideration of the facts and legal principles, the court determined that the starting point for the lead offence should be 4 to 5 years imprisonment, with an additional increase for the other offences leading to a total sentence of 7 years before considering personal factors. The final sentence, accounting for the guilty plea and no previous convictions, resulted in a total imprisonment term of 5 years and 7 months for the most serious offence, with concurrent sentences for the other charges. The court also imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of one-half of the sentence for the lead offence, considering it necessary to hold Taylor accountable and protect the community.

Orders