R v Thompson - [2022] NZHC 720

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR

IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-096-1619

[2022] NZHC 720

THE QUEEN

V

SCOTT SIMEON THOMPSON

Hearing: 8 April 2022

Counsel:

T G Bain for Crown

S I Robinson for Mr Thompson

Sentence:

8 April 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Thompson, as I am sure you know, there are a whole of things I have to say. I will say them and then I will get you to stand up at the end.

R v THOMPSON [2022] NZHC 720 [8 April 2022]

[2] Mr Thompson appears for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury in the District Court on one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.1 He is also for sentence on a charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, to which he pleaded guilty.2

[3] Mr Thompson was given a first strike warning by Judge Maze upon conviction. Sentencing was transferred to this Court for consideration of preventive detention.3

[4] The process to be followed is that the Court must identify what fixed-term sentence would be imposed. This provides a focus for assessing the need for the indefinite sentence of preventive detention, bearing in mind a finite sentence can be extended by means of an Extended Supervision Order.

Facts

[5] On 2 December 2003 Mr Thompson was sentenced for a number of offences to a total of 14 and a half years’ imprisonment with a nine and a half year minimum non parole period. He served all of that sentence and was release on 1 August 2018. Before release Corrections applied for an extended supervision order (ESO), that was granted by Grice J in July 2018, for five years. One of the special conditions later imposed by the Parole Board on that ESO was that Mr Thompson was not to enter into an intimate relationship without notifying his parole officer.

[6] In breach of that condition, and it seems with a certain amount of deception on his part, he formed just such a relationship with the victim a few months later. Although there is a dispute about whether that relationship remained on foot on 1 July 2019, it cannot be disputed that on that day he collected the victim from her place of work in central Wellington and drove her to where her own car was parked at a train station in Lower Hutt. On the way he became angry with her. He grabbed her by the hair and punched her in the face.4 Some of the victim’s hair was ripped out, she

1 Crimes Act 1961, Section 128(1)(b).
2 Crimes Act 1961, Section 117(e).
3…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2022] NZHC 720
Case: [2022] NZHC 720
Decision Date: 8 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson involved sentencing for Scott Simeon Thompson, who was convicted of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, and the sentencing notes were provided by Ellis J on 8 April 2022. Thompson was found guilty of sexual violation by unlawfully having sexual connection with a victim who was unable to defend herself or resist. Additionally, Thompson pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice by asking an associate to intimidate the victim.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate finite sentence for the current offending, whether a minimum non-parole period was required, and whether preventive detention should be imposed instead of a finite sentence. The court considered the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, and determined that a finite sentence of 11 years' imprisonment would be appropriate. The court also found that a minimum non-parole period of seven years was necessary for personal deterrence and protection of the community.

Ellis J concluded that preventive detention was necessary due to Thompson's history of serious sexual and violent offending, his high risk of reoffending, and his failure to engage in treatment to address the causes of his offending. The reports from health assessors indicated that Thompson's risk of committing further qualifying sexual offences and violent offences was well above average. The court found that a lengthy determinate sentence was not sufficient to protect the community, and therefore, preventive detention was the appropriate outcome.

Final orders:
(a) For the conviction on the charge of unlawful sexual connection, Thompson was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years.
(b) On the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, Thompson was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Both sentences are to be served concurrently.

Orders