R v Washer - [2017] NZHC 1683

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2016-021-847 [2017] NZHC 1683

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW WILLIAM WASHER

Hearing: 20 July 2017

Counsel:

J M Marinovich for Crown
J C Hannam for Defendant

Sentence:

20 July 2017

SENTENCE OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Washer, you appear for sentence today in relation to sexual offending against T, when she was aged between nine and 14 years old. T’s name is, of course, suppressed. You have pleaded guilty to one representative charge of sexual conduct with a girl under 12,1 four charges (specific and representative) of sexual conduct with a young person under 16,2 one representative charge of sexual violation by
rape,3 and seven charges (specific and representative) of sexual violation by unlawful

sexual connection.4

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3), maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128 and 128B, maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128 and 128B, maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.

R v WASHER [2017] NZHC 1683 [20 July 2017]

[2] You have already received a first strike warning as a result of your convictions on these charges.

[3] Your lawyer, Mr Hannam, and the Crown’s lawyer, Mr Marinovich, are essentially agreed that the main question for me today is whether you should be sentenced to preventive detention rather than to a finite, or fixed, term of imprisonment. The second question will be the length of any minimum term of imprisonment, that is the amount of time you must spend in jail before you might be released on parole.

[4] First of all, I need to talk in more detail about what exactly it is you did.

Facts

[5] In 2011 you formed a relationship with and moved in with T’s mother. T was then nine and her little sister was three. T’s mother was quite a lot older than you and in fact T was closer to you in age than she was. But T was not an adult. She was a child.

[6] Mr Hannam has confirmed that you accept the allegations in the Police Summary of Facts. That Summary records that when T was about 10 you took her into the spare room and asked her to kiss you. You then kissed her on the lips. You took your penis out of your pants and told T to suck it, which she did until you ejaculated. You made her suck your penis many times. Other times you touched T’s breasts underneath her clothes and this would often be followed by other sexual acts.

[7] You also regularly sexually violated T by putting your penis into her anus. Usually this would happen in the spare room, while her mother was in the shower, asleep, or out of the house. You did not use any…

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 Washer

Details

AGLC: R v Washer [2017] NZHC 1683
Case: [2017] NZHC 1683
Decision Date: 20 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew William Washer has been convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against a girl, T, who was aged between nine and fourteen years old at the time of the offenses. The New Zealand High Court, sitting in the New Plymouth Registry, heard Washer's case, and he pleaded guilty to charges including sexual conduct with a girl under 12, sexual conduct with a young person under 16, and sexual violation by rape and unlawful sexual connection. The primary issue before the court was whether Washer should be sentenced to preventive detention or a finite term of imprisonment, and if so, the length of the minimum term. The court considered various factors, including the nature and pattern of the offenses, the harm caused to the community and T, and the risk of future offending. The court found that Washer's offenses constituted a pattern of serious offending, with a high likelihood of reoffending if not treated. However, the availability of treatment in prison, potential application of an Extended Supervision Order, and registration under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 were seen as mitigating factors. The court decided on a lengthy, finite term of imprisonment, with a starting point of 19 years, reduced to 14 years, and a minimum term of eight years, to account for the totality of the offending, the harm caused, and the mitigating factors.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Matthew William Washer to 14 years' imprisonment with a minimum term of eight years, with all sentences to run concurrently. Washer will also be subject to the Child Sex Offender Register for the remainder of his life, with ongoing reporting obligations.

Orders