R v Thompson - [2018] NZHC 2608

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2016-091-2957 [2018] NZHC 2608

THE QUEEN

v

TERITE WAIMARAMA THOMPSON LEWIS ERU CRAIG

SHAYE GARY MICHAEL HOLLAND JORDAN WHITINUI

JEFFREY TERRANCE MAXWELL TROON

Hearing: 5 October 2018

Counsel:

S C Carter for Crown
E A Hall for Mr Thompson
L Ord and E Blincoe for Mr Whitinui
S Robinson for Mr Holland
I M Antunovic for Mr Craig
S A Thistoll for Mr Troon

Sentencing:

5 October 2018

SENTENCE OF CLARK J

R v THOMPSON [2018] NZHC 2608 [5 October 2018]

Introduction

[1] Because I am sentencing five of you this morning, it will take a little longer than a usual sentence, so you may remain seated while I go through that process. But I will ask you to stand at the point when I am going to pass sentence on you.

[2] I also need to say at the outset that there is no significance in the order in which I propose to sentence each of you. Nothing turns on the order. To underscore the point, I propose to sentence you in alphabetical order. I mean no disrespect in doing it this way. Alphabetical order is a neutral approach and no meaning at all should be taken from it.1

[3] My sentencing process will be in two parts:

(a) In the first part I will address matters of relevance to all five defendants: the charges to which you all pleaded guilty; the background to the offending; and a brief description of the trial. The victim impact statement will be addressed. I will refer to the principles and purposes of sentencing that have particular relevance to your offending, and I will also mention in this first part the broad approach I intend to take to your guilty pleas.

(b)After setting out the matters which apply to all of you I will turn to the individual sentencing. For each of you I will:

(i)First, set a starting point which reflects the level of seriousness and the criminality of your conduct.

(ii)Then I may adjust the starting point to reflect factors personal to you.

(iii) Then any discounts for guilty pleas or remorse will be applied.

1 Because Ms Hall had commitments in another Court it was agreed the sentencing would proceed in alphabetical order except for Mr Thompson who would be sentenced first.

[4] At the end of that assessment I will ask you to stand for sentence.

Charges

[5] You have each pleaded guilty to, and on 28 August 2018 were convicted of, the following charges:

(a) Mr Craig – one charge of indecent assault.2

(b) Mr Holland – one charge of being a party to indecent assault.3

(c) Mr Thompson – two charges of indecent assault.

(d) Mr Troon – two charges of indecent assault.

(e) Mr Whitinui – one…

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 [2018] NZHC 2608
Case: [2018] NZHC 2608
Decision Date: 5 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned the sentencing of five defendants who had pleaded guilty to various charges of indecent assault. The defendants were part of a group that followed and assaulted a complainant, S, who was 17 at the time of the offending. The court had to determine appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the offending, the circumstances of each individual defendant, and the benefits of their guilty pleas. The court also had to consider the principles and purposes of sentencing, such as holding the defendants accountable for their actions, promoting a sense of responsibility, denouncing their conduct, deterring them from committing similar offences, and assisting their rehabilitation.

The court assessed the starting points for each defendant based on the seriousness of their offending and their level of culpability. The court then considered any personal factors that could mitigate or aggravate the offending. The court also took into account the defendants' guilty pleas, which warranted a discount in their sentences. The court imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offending and the individual circumstances of each defendant, while also considering the principles and purposes of sentencing.

In summary, the court sentenced the defendants to terms of imprisonment, home detention, and supervision, taking into account the seriousness of their offending, their individual circumstances, and the benefits of their guilty pleas. The court also considered the principles and purposes of sentencing in determining the appropriate sentences for each defendant.

Orders