R v Walker - [2015] NZHC 1525

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-087-1944 [2015] NZHC 1525

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN EDMOND WALKER

Hearing: 2 July 2015

Counsel:

A J Pollett for Crown
R O Gowing for defendant

Judgment:

2 July 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Gowing & Co Lawyers limited, Whakatane

R v WALKER [2015] NZHC 1525 [2 July 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Walker, you have pleaded guilty to 29 charges involving sexual offending against seven young girls, over a 15 year period. In particular, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) fourteen charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, which has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)seven charges of indecent assault on a female under 12 years, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;2

(c) six charges of indecent assault on a female aged 12 to 16 years, which has a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment;3

(d)one charge of knowingly making objectionable publications, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;4 and

(e) one charge of intentionally making an intimate visual recording, which has a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.5

Circumstances of the offending

[2] You have pleaded guilty on the basis of the police summary of facts and I

therefore accept that document as accurately setting out the details of your offending.

[3] You are a single man aged 67 years. Prior to your arrest on the charges before the Court, you lived alone, in a house with a swimming pool, trampoline and swing set. Children in the neighbourhood were welcomed, or perhaps I should say lured, onto your property where they were able to use your recreational facilities, as well as your computer. You also offered them treats or gifts (such as chocolates,
lollies, make up sets or fake jewellery). This was all part of your grooming

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128 and s 128B.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3).
4      Films, Videos and Publications Classifications Act 1993, s 123(1)(a) and s 124.
5      Crimes Act 1961, s 216H.

behaviour, through which you ingratiated yourself with vulnerable young girls, at least some of whom appear to have come from disadvantaged homes.

[4] Your victims were girls from your neighbourhood as well as the daughters or grand-daughters of friends. Seven victims have been identified, with the offending spread over some 15 years. The police summary of facts uses pseudonyms for the names of the various victims, to protect their identity. I will do the same.

[5] Your earliest offending dates from between 1999 and 2001, when “Emily” first came to your prior address, with family and friends, to use your pool. She was aged 8 or 9 at the time. You offered her chocolate in exchange for naked photos, which she declined.…

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 [2015] NZHC 1525
Case: [2015] NZHC 1525
Decision Date: 2 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walker involved the sentencing of John Edmond Walker, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual offending against seven young girls over a period of 15 years. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the nature and extent of the offending, as well as any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. The key legal issues included setting a starting point for the sentence based on the circumstances of the offending, and determining whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. The court considered the aggravating features of the offending, such as planning and premeditation, violence and detention, vulnerability of the victims, harm to the victims, the scale of the offending, and the breach of trust. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the offender's age, health, and guilty plea. The court ultimately decided that a starting point of 16 years imprisonment was appropriate, with a 25% discount for the guilty plea. However, the court was not persuaded that any further discount was warranted, as the offender had demonstrated no genuine remorse and continued to minimise his behaviour. The court also decided that preventive detention was not justified in this case, as a lengthy determinate sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to protect the community. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of two-thirds of the sentence, or eight years, to ensure that the offender was held accountable for the harm done and to deter and denounce the conduct.

The final orders of the court were as follows: John Edmond Walker was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment on each of the fourteen charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years. He was also sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on each of the seven charges of indecent assault on a female under 12 years, five years' imprisonment on each of the six charges of indecent assault on a female aged 12 to 16 years, five years' imprisonment on the charge of knowingly making objectionable publications, and two years' imprisonment on the charge of intentionally making an intimate visual recording. All of these sentences were to be served concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years. The court also made an order for the destruction of the seized electronic storage devices that contained intimate and objectionable material, as well as any hard copy photographs or other materials containing the same.

Orders