R v Thomas - [2024] NZHC 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI -2021-092-005322
[2024] NZHC 598

THE KING

v

RENE FRANCIS THOMAS

Hearing: 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31 August, 1, 4 September 2023 Appearances: E T Fletcher and H A M Watts for Crown
P Kaye and K Lamb for Defendant

Sentencing: 19 March 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDERSON J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland

R v THOMAS [2024] NZHC 598 [19 March 2024]

[1] Mr Thomas, you are for sentence having been found guilty at trial of seven charges, the most serious of which are sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and strangulation. The maximum periods of imprisonment for the seven convictions range between three years and 20 years’ imprisonment.

[2] A key issue I have to consider today is whether to sentence you to preventive detention. That is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. You would be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community.

The offending

[3] I will first set out the facts of your offending. I take them from the essential elements of the charges which the jury must have found proved and from the facts which, as the trial Judge, I am satisfied were proved.

[4] Between April and November 2019, you and the victim shared a cell at Wiri Prison. Your cell contained a single bunk bed. You slept on the bottom while the victim slept on the top. You shared a shower and toilet area and a landline phone. You were locked up together from around 5 pm each evening until the morning.

[5] During the period that you and the victim were cell mates, you controlled what he could do. That was even down to the level of when and whether he could use the toilet or shower and what he could do in his spare time. You ate the victim’s meals so that over a period of eight months he lost over 30 kilograms. You would abuse, humiliate and threaten the victim with physical violence. You made sexualised remarks and forced him (to use your term) “strip dance” in front of you for hours and hours on end.

[6] You have been convicted of seven charges of physically and sexually assaulting the victim over the 230 days you were celled together.

[7] Charge 1 is a representative charge covering effectively the whole time you were celled together relating to you punching the victim. This was a daily occurrence and would occur for next to no reason. You would punch the victim in the back of the

head, or ribs, or nose, mouth or face. You particularly targeted the victim’s left ear so that it became very swollen and he suffered cauliflower ear.

[8] Charges 2 and 3, assault with a weapon, involve you hitting the victim as he lay on his top bunk. You hit him with 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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [2024] NZHC 598
Case: [2024] NZHC 598
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Thomas was heard, focusing on the sentencing of the defendant, Rene Francis Thomas, who had been found guilty of multiple charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and strangulation. The court had to determine whether Thomas should be sentenced to preventive detention, a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period, or a finite sentence. The maximum periods of imprisonment for the convictions ranged from three years to 20 years.

The court considered the severity of Thomas's offenses, which included a pattern of physical and sexual abuse over 230 days while he and the victim were cellmates in prison. The abuse included punching, hitting with weapons, and causing severe injuries, culminating in a strangulation and anal rape. The victim suffered significant physical and psychological harm, including PTSD and depression. The court also examined Thomas's extensive criminal history, which included multiple convictions for violent and sexual offenses, indicating an entrenched pattern of behavior that had not been corrected by previous imprisonment.

In determining the sentence, the court weighed the seriousness of the harm caused by the offenses, the risk of reoffending, and Thomas's efforts to address the causes of his offending. The court found that Thomas's violent behavior was increasing in intensity and that he was at a high risk of reoffending, particularly given his lack of insight into his need for treatment and his history of non-compliance with treatment programs. The court concluded that preventive detention was necessary to protect the community due to the high risk Thomas posed.

The court sentenced Thomas to preventive detention with a minimum period of six years' imprisonment for the charges of strangulation and sexual violation. For the other convictions, the court imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment ranging from two to three years. The court also recommended that Thomas receive intensive one-on-one counseling.

Orders