R v Thompson - [2014] NZHC 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-087-000417 [2014] NZHC 1557

THE QUEEN

v

BLIGH LAWSON THOMPSON

Hearing: 4 July 2014

Appearances:

Greg Hollister-Jones for the Crown
Roger Gowing for the Prisoner

Judgment:

4 July 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

Introduction

[1] Bligh Lawson Thompson, you appear this morning for sentence having pleaded guilty on 28 April 2014 to:

(a) one count of abduction for the purpose of sexual connection; and

(b) one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (oral);

and

(c) one count of sexual violation by rape.

[2] Before the sentencing commenced, the Crown offered no evidence on Count
4 which alleges unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration. I discharged you on that count.

R v THOMPSON [2014] NZHC 1557 [4 July 2014]

[3] Abduction carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The other

two charges carry a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[4] The Crown has filed an amended summary of facts which you signed this morning and, subject to specific reservations, agreed with. The summary sets out the circumstances and details of your offending which give rise to the charges on which you are to be sentenced. Several aspects of this summary are in dispute. These are identified in a memorandum of counsel attached to the summary. However the Crown does not seek a disputed facts hearing. Consequently, I do not take into account those parts of the summary. One exception is that is at the request of both counsel, before the sentencing commenced, I viewed video footage taken by way of CCTV on the night which depicts the events when the abduction commenced and I have been invited to make findings of fact based on what the video shows. I have done that. At this point, however, I turn to the facts which are undisputed.

[5] The victim is a 22 year old woman who, on the evening of 15 March 2013, had spent the evening socialising with friends and family at a bar in Opotiki. You were in the same bar but you did not socialise with the victim. However, when you left you were outside the bar when the victim left and were seen looking at her. She was a stranger to you.

[6] In the early hours of the next morning, heavily intoxicated she became separated from her friends and decided to walk home. It would normally have been a short five minute stroll.

[7] You approached her on your bicycle; you got off and you walked beside her. At this point she was on the outskirts of town by a bush-clad area near the Coast Guard building which was out of view from other houses and buildings.

[8] The Crown submits your claim that you and the victim were in the vicinity of that building in order to complete a drug deal is false. I point to the fact that no drugs were recovered and the Crown refers me to a similar explanation…

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 [2014] NZHC 1557
Case: [2014] NZHC 1557
Decision Date: 4 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bligh Lawson Thompson has been sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand following his guilty plea to charges of abduction for the purpose of sexual connection, sexual violation by rape, and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (oral). The Crown did not proceed with a charge of unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration. The court heard an amended summary of facts, which outlined the circumstances of the offending and the victim's impact statement. The court accepted some facts as undisputed and viewed CCTV footage to make findings on other disputed facts. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, the aggravating features of the offending, and the submissions from both the Crown and the defence. The court determined that the offending fell within band two of the guideline case R v AM and imposed a finite sentence of 11 years and three months' imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and six months. The court also considered the possibility of preventive detention and determined that it was appropriate to impose a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum term of imprisonment of five years on each of the charges.

Orders