R v Walker - [2016] NZHC 1667

ORDER PERMITTING PUBLICATION OF EACH OF THE FOUR COMPLAINANTS' FIRST NAMES AND MAIDEN SURNAMES (BEING KIM WALKER, ROBYN WALKER, KAREN WALKER AND TRACEY WHITE) PURSUANT TO S 203(3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
2011. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT THE COMPLAINANTS' MARRIED SURNAMES ARE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-096-358 [2016] NZHC 1667

THE QUEEN

v

PETER RICHARD WALKER

Hearing: 22 July 2016

Appearances:

E J Walker for the Crown
A D Couchman for the Defendant

Sentence:

22 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
E J Walker, Meredith Connell, Auckland
A D Couchman, Barrister, Auckland

R v PETER RICHARD WALKER [2016] NZHC 1667 [22 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Walker you are present here today to be sentenced on:

(a) Three charges of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 12; and
(b) Eleven charges of indecently assaulting a girl between 12 – 16 years. [2] You were found guilty of those charges by unanimous jury verdicts earlier

this year. The same jury acquitted you on one charge of rape, one charge of incest and 11 charges of indecent assault or inducing indecent acts. In so doing the jury undertook, as it was obliged to, a charge by charge analysis, finding in respect particularly of charges based on very early childhood memories and associated with alleged hypnotism, that the standard of proof was not satisfied.

Facts

[3] Regrettably I must refer briefly to the facts of your offending today. You have been convicted of indecent assault charges against all four complainants, three of whom were your biological daughters and one, their childhood friend. Your offending spanned a period of approximately eight to nine years, from around 1976 to 1984, while your children were growing up with you and their mother, who is your ex-wife.

[4] Kim is your eldest daughter. You sexually offended against Kim from when she was approximately aged nine to when she was approximately aged 15.

[5] The offending against Kim occurred while she was a young girl living in the family home and dependent on you. You touched her genitalia while she was in bed with you, in the bathtub and the shower. She recalled you rubbing around her clitoris when she was younger than 12, on more than one occasion. That forms the basis of a representative charge. She also recalled sitting on your lap in the Lazy-Boy chair and feeling your penis underneath her, while you had your hands inside her underwear touching her genitalia. Her evidence was that that happened “countless times.”

[6] When she was between 12 and 16 years of age, Kim recalled you coming into her bedroom and touching her genitalia, as well as putting your fingers inside her vagina. This escalated to cuddling Kim from behind, with your penis between her legs while you touched her genitalia.

[7] Overall, Kim’s evidence painted a picture of continuous offending, escalating in seriousness as Kim grew up. That evidence was supported…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2016] NZHC 1667
Case: [2016] NZHC 1667
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Peter Richard Walker, was sentenced for multiple charges of indecent assault against his biological daughters and a childhood friend, all of whom were under the age of 16 at the time of the offenses. The court identified several legal issues, including the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the relevance of the defendant's age and health, and the consideration of any mitigating factors. The Crown argued for a starting point of five to six years, while the defence suggested a range of three and a half to four and a half years. The court determined a starting point of four years, considering the seriousness of the offenses and the historical context of the sentencing. The court also considered the defendant's age, health issues, and his claim of good character, ultimately granting a discount of nine months. The final sentence was three years and three months imprisonment, to be served concurrently on all charges.

Orders