R v Walmsley - [2016] NZHC 1407

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2014-076-000704 [2016] NZHC 1407

THE QUEEN

v

FRANK RUSSELL WALMSLEY

Hearing: 24 June 2016

Appearances:

A R McRae for Crown
C M Ruane and D Brown for Defendant

Judgment:

24 June 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] Mr Walmsley, you may remain seated at this point. I will ask you to stand shortly.

[2] Mr Walmsley you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury in this Court and convicted on 26 April 2016 on 52 charges of predominantly sexual violation offences. These include 13 counts of rape, 14 counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, 10 counts of sexual conduct with a young person aged between 12 and 16, seven counts of indecent act with intent to insult or offend, one count of sexual conduct with a child under 12, two counts of attempted
sexual violation by rape, two counts of male assaults female, one count of attempted

R v WALMSLEY [2016] NZHC 1407 [24 June 2016]

sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, one count of indecent assault and, lastly, one count of assault with a weapon.

[3] At the time of your offending the maximum penalty for your most serious offending, being the rape charges, is 20 years. You appear today for sentence on all charges.

[4] Shortly I will first turn to outline the facts of your offending briefly but before I begin I wish to remind the public and all present that all names and identities of the victims and their families in this case are suppressed. With this in mind I will use names in these sentencing remarks which are not the true names of the victims or their families.

The facts

[5] Turning to the facts here Mr Walmsley, your offending has involved two clear and distinct groups of offending over the course of two periods of time which spanned in total 12 years. The first set of offending occurred between 1995 and
2000 within the Child Youth & Family Home at Oamaru for which you and your wife were approved Family Home caregivers. In the late 1980s you and your wife began as caregivers for Child Youth & Family, fostering a number of children for short periods of time. In the mid 1990s you then became approved Family Home caregivers and operated the Oamaru Family Home.

[6] The first group of your victims who I will call the CYFS children were four young people placed by the State into the Oamaru Family Home you and your wife ran and managed at the time. These youngsters had all clearly come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds and you would have known of these backgrounds having seen the care plans that preceded the arrival of each of these children at the Family Home. These victims had been placed into the care…

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 Walmsley

Details

AGLC: R v Walmsley [2016] NZHC 1407
Case: [2016] NZHC 1407
Decision Date: 24 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frank Russell Walmsley was sentenced in the Timaru District Court for a series of sexual offences committed over a 12-year period against multiple victims. Walmsley was found guilty on 52 charges including rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, indecent acts, and assault with a weapon. The court outlined the legal principles guiding sentencing, emphasizing the need for accountability, deterrence, and community protection. The judge considered various culpability factors such as planning and premeditation, vulnerability of the victims, scale of the offending, and breach of trust. The court determined a starting point of 22 years imprisonment, adjusted for totality, and imposed a minimum term of 10 years. The final sentence was 22 years imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, to be served concurrently. The court also clarified the method of calculating the 22-year sentence for the rape charges, detailing separate periods for the different groups of victims.

Orders