R v Watkins

[2015] NZHC 345

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-063-003055 [2015] NZHC 345

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES LELAND WATKINS

Hearing:	4 March 2015
Appearances:	A Gordon for the Crown M J Hine for the Defendant
Sentencing:	4 March 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Families Matter Law Practice, Rotorua

R v WATKINS [2015] NZHC 345 [4 March 2015]

[1]      Mr Watkins, you appear for sentencing on 27 charges.  All relate to sexual offending you committed between 2000 and 2006, against two young girls who were your family friends and neighbours.   You pleaded guilty to the majority of these charges on 17 April 2014. You pleaded guilty to the sexual violation by rape charges on 16 December 2014.

[2]      The majority of these charges are representative.

Offences

[3]      In relation to the first victim, your charges are as follows:

Offence	Section	Maximum penalty
3 x sexual violation by rape	s 128(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961	20 years imprisonment
7 x unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration and oral sexual connection	s 128(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961	20 years imprisonment
1 x indecently assaulting a child under 12	s 133(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961	10 years imprisonment

[4]      In relation to the second victim, your charges are as follows:

Offence	Section	Maximum penalty
3 x sexual violation by rape	s 128(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961	20 years imprisonment
9 x unlawful sexual connection by digital penetration and oral sexual connection	s 128(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961	20 years imprisonment
1 x indecently assaulting a child under 12	s 133(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961	10 years imprisonment
3  x  inducing  an  indecent  act with a girl under 12	S 133(1)(c) Crimes Act 1961	10 years imprisonment

Facts

[5]      Mr Watkins, when you moved to New Zealand you married and settled in the Rotorua  community.    You  were  closely  associated  to  local  churches,  and  held yourself out as a trained pastor and offered counselling services.  At this stage, you became friends with the victims’ family, who were struggling with the ill-health of their child.  You became a trusted counsellor to their child, and you and your wife began to assist the family.

[6]      Over time, you became close.  The family’s two daughters, the victims, were invited to stay at your house while their parents tended to their other child; you and your wife were called “Grandpa” and “Grandma”.1    You regularly had the girls at your house, primarily at separate times, from 2000 until 12 April 2006 when you moved back to the United States of America.  During the time of the offending, you lived in both the Rotorua and nearby areas.

[7]      There are representative charges of sexual offending across this time period. Despite  the  graphic  nature  of  some  of  this  offending,  I  must  describe  it  to demonstrate the extent and seriousness of your offending.

[8]      In 2000, when the victims began to stay over at your Rotorua house, when each would stay you would touch them all over their bodies, including their genital areas. At their youngest stage, the girls were eight and seven during this offending.

[9]      The offending then escalated.   You began to penetrate the second victim’s vagina with your fingers when she came to stay, including on a specific occasion in September at your Rotorua house, when her parents were at the hospital with their other child.  On that occasion, you also made her masturbate you.  This continued more than 20 times at this address.

[10]     You subsequently moved to a house in another area.   You would travel to

Rotorua on a Friday afternoon, and pick up either girl and bring them to your house for  the  weekend,  whereupon  you  would  continue  to  offend  against  them.    In

1      There are no allegations that your wife had any idea of what was happening, and you are now divorced.

particular, you would get the second victim to masturbate you, would insert your fingers into her vagina and it was at this address that you first had sexual intercourse with her by inserting your penis into her vagina.  She believes that this occurred to her 10 – 15 times.  She was nine years old.  The first victim only recalls going to your home a couple of times.   On one of these instances, you also had sexual intercourse with her.  She was 11 years old.

[11]     You left New Zealand for the United States in early 2003, returning some two or so years later.  Although you admit to flying the first victim to the United States, and subsequently assaulting her during this time, no charges arise from it.  When you returned to New Zealand, your offending continued in much the same way as before. The first victim was at this time 14 years old.  You also began to get her to shower with you, performing oral sex on her and requiring her to give you oral sex until you ejaculated in her mouth. These events occurred while you were residing in Rotorua.

[12]     You vacated your Rotorua residence again in 2005.   On this weekend, you picked up the second victim, and took her to a motel.   There, you again sexually assaulted her using your fingers and tongue, eventually having sexual intercourse with her.

[13]     After this, you moved into a flat in a nearby area.  There, you had each girl come separately to your house on weekends as you had earlier.  You continued to offend against them in the same ways as before, leading to representative charges of unlawful sexual connection against both victims.

[14]     The level of offending is significant.  The first victim describes the offending happening “less than 50” times over the entire period from 2000 to 2006.  She says she performed oral sex on you in the shower more than 20, but less than 40 times. The second victim has stated that the sexual offending at [suppressed] occurred between 10 to 15 times.  She was 12 to 13 at this time.

[15]     Your victims worked up the courage to tell their parents what had happened in January 2007, after you had returned to the United States.  The original complaint, by the first victim, was made to Police in December 2007, after trauma counselling.

The second victim was unable to complete a statement to Police at this time, but made a statement in February 2010.

[16]     You were located by Police in 2010.  You admitted your actions, and stated that they occurred because you loved the complainants too much.  You were later extradited to New Zealand.

Victim Impact Statement

[17]     The Victim Impact Statements, which have been read to court today by the complainants, indicate the extent of the effect you have had on these young girls, Mr Watkins.  The first victim details how, after she took sexual education at school, she felt worthless, ashamed and like a waste of space. After she opened up to her parents about the offending, she felt depressed and sad all the time.   She self-harmed repeatedly, and attempted suicide 13 times.  She began taking drugs and drinking to deal with the pain.

[18]     She has now turned her life around and is studying to be a social worker, to stop the type of harm you caused her occurring to others.  She wants her daughter to grow up in a world with no-one like you around her.  She states that although you took her childhood, you have not taken her life and she knows it was not her fault. She feels pity for you.  She says that she will never forgive you for taking something from her which was not yours to take.     However, when she was addressing me today, she indicated that she had come to a position of forgiveness in the last two or three weeks.

[19]     The  first  victim  states  that  she  has  been  on  anti-depressants  since  the offending, and will be for the rest of her life.   She felt deep shame about your actions, and started using drugs and alcohol from the age of 13 to escape that shame. She is now in a serious relationship, and is strong, but feels the effects of your abuse. She gets flashbacks and nightmares about your actions, and cannot step back into the church because she associates them with you and your breach of trust.

Personal circumstances

Prior Convictions

[20]     You have no previous convictions.

Pre-Sentence Report

[21]     Mr Watkins, you were granted New Zealand citizenship after immigrating

here in the late 80’s. You are originally from the United States.

[22]     You have had four marriages, and have two sons.   You are in poor health, having had major heart surgery, and with ischaemic heart disease, vascular disorders, hypogonadism (rendering you impotent and unable to obtain an erection) and diabetes.

[23]     Although you accept full responsibility for the charges, you continue to state that  you  never had  penile intercourse with  the  victims  due to  your inability to maintain an erection.   Aside from that, you appear genuine in your remorse, and deeply ashamed of your actions.  You attempted suicide when the offending was first revealed.  You cannot explain your offending, and do not see yourself as having any sexual deviancy.

[24]     The Department  of Corrections  has  assessed  you  as  highly motivated  to address  your sexual  offending,  and  welcoming  of psychological  assessment  and counselling.  Your attitude suggests you would be compliant with the requirements of  the  programme.    The  report-writer  describes  you  as  acutely  aware  of  the emotional harm and developmental damage you caused both your victims.   They describe you as at low risk of re-offending, because the circumstances of the offending are unlikely to be repeated, especially given your advancing age and ill- health.

[25]     The report writer recommends an inevitable sentence of imprisonment.

Purposes and Principles of Sentencing

[26]     In sentencing you today I must take into account the sentencing purposes and principles  as  set  out  in  the  Sentencing Act  2002.    The  purposes  of  particular importance are the need for accountability for harm done to the victims and to the community (s 7(1)(a)), to promote in the offender a responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm (s 7(1)(b)) and to provide for the victims’ interests (s 7(1)(c)) as well as to denounce (s 7(1)(e)) and deter the offending (s 7(1)(f)).

[27]     The relevant principles of sentencing are the need to consider the gravity (s 8(a)) and seriousness of the offending (s 8(b)), the desirability in maintaining consistency with appropriate sentencing levels (s 8(e)) and the effect of the offending on the victim (s 8(f)).  There is a need to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate (s 8(g)), which is relevant in the context of your ill-health.

Submissions

Crown Submissions

[28]     The tariff case setting out the guidelines for sentencing sexual assault cases is R v AM.  The Crown submits that the nature of your offending, Mr Watkins, is that you fall into the higher end (Band 4) of that judgment, and that a starting point of between 16 and 20 years imprisonment is therefore appropriate.

[29]     The Crown identifies the planning and premeditation of your soliciting these victims, the vulnerability of the victims, their ongoing harm and the scale of the offending as aggravating factors.  In particular, they identify the way you abused the trust both of these girls and of the entire family as a serious factor.

[30]     The Crown supports giving you a discount for your guilty plea which is close to  or  at  the  maximum  allowed  for  guilty  pleas,  following  the  Supreme  Court guideline judgment in Hessell v R.2   That is a 25 per cent discount, in recognition of the time, expense, and trauma you have spared in avoiding this matter going to a jury

trial.  They also acknowledge that you may be entitled to some discount for your ill-

2      Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135.

health.  In the absence of medical evidence, they are not definitive, but they submit that this Court must bear in mind you have been in bad health for a long time, including during your offending.  They remind the Court that your conditions have clearly been able to be managed for the period of your current imprisonment, from late 2013 in the United States and from March 2014 here.  They submit that there are other statutory remedies for you if your ill-health becomes so poor that you need

treatment or early release.3

[31]     They submit that in total, you should receive a sentence of 17 – 18 year starting point, with allowances for your guilty pleas and any other mitigating factors.

Defendant’s Submissions

[32]     Your counsel accepts that you fall within Band 4 of R v AM, and also accepts the aggravating factors of the offending identified by the Crown.   However, your counsel seeks to obtain mitigation for you in recognition of your age, health and the fact that all your family reside in the United States.   These factors are all said to make serving a sentence disproportionately severe for you.

[33]     Your  counsel  submits  that  you  acknowledged  your  guilt  and  remorse sincerely from the date you were first interviewed by the United States authorities in July 2010, and that you have written letters to the victims stressing that you are deeply sorry for doing them wrong.

[34]     Your counsel also outlines the extent of your ill-health for the court.   You described your health to the police in the United States as “fair”, and that you had continued to work up until your arrest, despite having what is referred to in the reports as either a triple or quadruple bypass.   You have angina, artificial arteries from vascular disorders, hypogonadism, depression and diabetes.   You are also reported as suffering two episodes of toxic ischemic colitis this year.  There is some evidence a doctor has expressed concern that your diabetes is not being treated

correctly.

3      These include the discretion of the Parole Board under s 41 of the Parole Act 2002, and the discretion of the Chief Executive of Corrections under s 62 Corrections Act 2004.

[35]     Finally, your counsel also points out that you will have a total absence of contact with any of your family in the United States, which adds to the severity of your sentencing.

Sentencing

[36]     In sentencing you today, I will follow the established approach of considering the circumstances of the offending first and any guideline judgments from superior courts in setting what is known as a starting point.  I will then consider whether any mitigating factors relevant to you personally require reducing that starting point.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors of the Offending

[37]     A number of significant aggravating features are present in this offending. The victims were both particularly vulnerable, being only seven and nine years old when your offending began and just eight or nine years old when sexual intercourse first occurred (s 9(1)(g)).  The offending amounted to a gross breach of trust, given Mr  Watkins,  the  position  of  authority  and  trust  that  you  held  with  the  family (s 9(1)(f)).  This is made clear in the victim impact statement, which notes that, for at least your victims, you have destroyed her ability to find comfort in the church, and to form part of that community.  Moreover, both women mention the fact that their brother was receiving counselling from you and was perceived to be benefiting from that relationship as a reason for not exposing your behaviour.   It is clear that your position of trust within the family helped prolong the abuse which occurred.

[38]     The  offending  was  premeditated  (s  9(1)(i)),  repetitive  and  prolonged, extending to flying one victim to the United States, and then abusing her there.  The extent of the effect of the offending on both victims in their childhood, and the ongoing resulting harm caused by the offending is set out in the victim impact statements (s 9(1)(d).  The scale of offending stretched over six years, although for two of those years you were in the United States.   The trauma you caused to this family and to these women’s childhoods is incalculable.

[39]     There are no mitigating factors of this offending.

Guideline judgment

[40]     The leading case on sexual offending sentencing is R v AM.  This applies to serious sexual offending taking place after 2010.4    However, despite that, the Court of Appeal has held that the guidelines in R v AM apply to relevant offending in earlier time periods in which the maximum sentence for the offending was the same, as the judgment in R v AM was seen as not differing significantly from then-current sentencing practices.5    I will therefore apply the guidelines in R v AM to determine the band of offending you fall into, before assessing whether you are at the higher or lower end of that band.

[41]     The Crown has submitted that you are within Band 4, or the most serious band, of possible cases where the lead offence is rape.  If I find you are within this band,  your  starting  point  must,  for  consistency,  be  within  16  –  20  years imprisonment. The maximum possible sentence for rape is 20 years imprisonment.

[42]     The Court of Appeal in a recent case has expressed that the bands cover rape, but also unlawful sexual connection involving penile penetration of the mouth, as occurred in this case on multiple occasions.  The Court advocated taking a starting point with reference to the bands which considers both the rape and sexual violation of the victims.6

[43]     In R v AM, the “paradigm case” of offending within Band 4 was described as being repeated rapes of one or more family members over a period of years.7   Where the offending involves children or teenagers, this is seen as a factor indicating that a higher starting point should be adopted.8

[44]     It is clear that this aptly describes the offending in this case, albeit that you, Mr Watkins, are not actually family to these women.  You had a relationship to them that was of a grandfather; you took on significant childcare responsibilities for the

family.  You were so trusted that the family allowed you to take their daughters on

4      R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750.

5      R v Jeffries [2012] NZCA 608 at [83]–[84].

6      F (CA844/2013) v R [2014] NZCA 390 at [29].

7      R v AM, above n 4, at [109].

8      R v AM, above n 4, at [109].

holiday, and to buy them presents, all of which were viewed favourably as acts of charity.  The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that “it would be to take an overly technical approach” to R v AM to distinguish between close family members and the children abused in that case, who were “for all intents and purposes” part of the offender’s household.9    Although the victims’ place in your household was more limited than in that case, I find it appropriate to characterise you as essentially a member of the extended family.

[45]     Your abuse began when both women were very young, and continued into their teenage years.  Although the nature of the abuse was not violent, or aggravated in the way you carried it out, the extent of your abuse and the multiple types of offending against multiple victims were also acknowledged in R v AM as factors.10

[46]     You betrayed their trust in a serious manner, and caused significant damage to  your victims.    I agree that  your offending  fits  the  categorisation  outlined in Band 4.

Relevant Cases

[47]     I now look to where in Band 4 your offending is best placed.  This requires a comparison with other, similar cases.

[48]     The  Court  of Appeal  has  recently  explained  in  detail,  with  reference  to extensive case law, the standard to fall at the highest end of Band 4.11   The offences in that case, albeit involving similar types of offending and breaches of trust, went on for a significantly longer period and involved an additional element of brutality in some of the offending which justified a 20 year sentence.

[49]     In R v Kupa, Asher J sentenced an offender who also faced 21 similar charges in relation to two victims, who the offender had been in charge of as a Child, Youth and Family caregiver.12    This involved a significant degree of trust, from children

who were already particularly vulnerable.  However, the offending occurred over a

9      F (CA844/2013) v R, above n 6.

10 Above n 4, at [110].

11     F (CA844/2013) v R, above n 6.

12     R v Kupa [2014] NZHC 1415.

much more limited time period, which was a factor the Judge drew on to distinguish the case as the lower end of Band 4.  He imposed a 15 and a half year starting point.

[50]     In  Triggs  v  R  the  offending  was  highly  similar,  involving  a  trusted grandfather figure who frequently offended against a young girl.  The offending was similar involving fondling which culminated in rape, taking place over three years when the complainant was aged between seven and 10.13     The Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of 15 years imprisonment.  Although the offending in that case was characterised as being in Band 3, the Court of Appeal thought it should

rightly have been considered as within Band 4 and the starting point “could well have been higher.”14

[51]     In H (CA123/2012) v R this Court dismissed an appeal against a 17 year starting point for a father offending against his daughter, from the ages of nine and

13 years old, including rape on more than 10 occasions, and more frequent indecent assaults, and digital vaginal penetration.15     The Court again commented that the offending was a paradigm Band 4 case, and that the starting point of 17  years imprisonment was low in context.

[52]     Mr Watkins, your offending in this case is not quite at the worst end of the Band 4 scale, but it is clearly worse than Triggs or Kupa.  It is relatively similar to H, albeit that you, Mr Watkins, at least were not a direct and close relative.  Given the Court of Appeal’s view that 17 years was low in that case, I find that a starting point of 17 years imprisonment would be appropriate here.

[53]     I must ensure that the sentence I give you is in line with the totality principle, as in, that it reflects the totality of your offending.  I am satisfied that considering both the unlawful sexual connection and rape charges in setting the Band 4 starting

point ensures that this has occurred.

13     Triggs v R [2010] NZCA 543.

14 At [13].

15     H (CA123/2012) v R [2012] NZCA 479 at [14].

Adjusting the Starting Point

[54]     The next step in the sentencing process is to assess if there are any mitigating factors which justify reducing the starting point.  The major mitigating factor in your favour, Mr Watkins, is your age and ill-health and whether that would make your sentence disproportionately severe.  You are now in the mid-60s, and as the Crown states, you are in reasonably poor health.  Under s 8(h) of the Sentencing Act, I may take this into account in sentencing you.

[55]     In R v Rameka, in the context of similar historic sexual abuse, the offender received a 20 per cent discount for these factors, as Heath J felt his time in prison would undoubtedly be harder than for other offenders.   Mr Rameka was 68, profoundly deaf and had one leg amputated.  In R v Luce, a two year discount was given where there was evidence that the offender was “in such ill-health” that his life

expectancy was “now palpably short”.16     In the R v P, the offender received a

discount of 35 per cent on  his sentence for sexual offending in recognition of his ill- health which meant he was unlikely to survive more than a couple of years.17

[56]     However, the Court of Appeal has also made it clear that ill-health is of limited significance where there is nothing to suggest that a prisoner’s health cannot be managed adequately within the prison environment.18    There is also a desire to prevent ill-health becoming an excuse to offend further.19

[57]     Your counsel, despite his best endeavours, has not provided any evidence about the effect of prison on managing your health, or evidence that these have shortened  your life expectancy.    I note that  you  have lived  with  similar health problems for many years.  In relation, at least, to your depression and diabetes these are both relatively common afflictions which the prison management should be adept at catering for.  There is no real suggestion that any of your medical conditions will not be able to be managed in prison, including your clearly severe heart problems. In the absence of more significant evidence, I am of the view that a discount on the

starting point of 17 years imprisonment is not warranted.  However, I will reduce the

16     R v Luce [2007] NZCA 476 at [26].

17     R v P [2009] NZCA 10.

18     R v Luce, above n 16; Triggs v R, above n 13.

19     R v Luce, above n 16, at [22].

minimum period of imprisonment which I would otherwise have imposed on you accordingly.

[58]     In relation to your relative isolation from your family, Mr Watkins, I am not persuaded that this will you cause undue hardship.  You moved to New Zealand for a significant part of your life, you have had the opportunity to make friends  and connections here.  You are a New Zealand citizen.  You clearly became a large part of the Rotorua church community.  You also chose to offend here, and must accept the consequences that flow from that choice.  If your family in America wish to visit you that is still possible, although of course it will be less frequent.  However, many prisoners do not have regular, or any, visitors and this is not such a severe outcome for you that it makes your sentence unduly harsh.

[59]     Mr Watkins,  your  pre-sentence  report  indicates  that  you  have  significant remorse towards your offending.   You have expressed regret, and have attempted suicide in reaction to the charges.  Although whether your suicide was connected to the offending, or to your own fear of prison is debatable, it is clear that you are at a loss to explain this offending, and have an understanding of the harm you have caused.   Of course, your current remorse does not nearly overcome the years of prolonged abuse you have subjected these victims to.

[60]     Remorse can be considered as an additional factor warranting a discount. However, offenders will not automatically receive discounts for showing remorse.20

The judge must consider that genuine remorse is shown.  The pre-sentence report is favourable to you in this assessment.  Considering the remorse you have shown and your isolation from your family, I will adopt a five per cent discount, which would reduce your starting point to 16 years three months imprisonment.

[61]     Under Hessell v R, you are entitled to a 25 per cent discount on your final sentence for your guilty pleas.21

20     Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 at [51] – [65].

21     Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135 at [48] and [75].

[62]     An approximately 25 per cent reduction from 16 years three months brings the final sentence I impose on you to 12 years and three months imprisonment.

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

[63]     The  standard  process  for  imposing  a  minimum  period  of  imprisonment, which is applied for offending which is seen as too grave to allow the offender the opportunity of early parole, is complicated in your case by the different time periods in which the offending has taken place.  The Crown’s submissions have laid out the minimum periods and the relevant tests that this Court can consider for each offence.

[64]     Section 86 of the Sentencing Act, the current provision governing minimum non-parole periods, came into force on 30 June 2002. Although minimum periods of imprisonment (MPI) cannot be imposed on offending before this point, under the s 152  transitional  provision,  s  86  can  govern  offences  occurring  before  the commencement date if the offence is a serious violent offence as defined in the Criminal Justice Act.   Sexual violation was a qualifying crime under that Act, so

those offences can be considered toward imposing a MPI.22    The Crown notes that

the test for imposing an MPI under s 86 was altered in 2004.  This means that some of the charges are covered by the old test, and others the current s 86 test.

[65]     Under the current standard, an MPI may be imposed where the one third default minimum for sexual offending would be insufficient to hold the offender accountable for the harm done, denounce the conduct, deter the offender or others, or protect the community.23

[66]     Under the historic version, the central consideration is the offender’s level of culpability, which is increased by unusual callousness, extreme violence, vulnerable or multiple victims and serious actual or intended consequences.24    Mr Watkins, I agree with both Crown and your own counsel, that there is really no question that

your offending would meet the test under either standard.

22     Criminal Justice Act, s 2.

23     Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(2).

24     R v Brown [2002] 3 NZLR 670 (CA) at [32].

[67]     Three charges of rape and ten charges of unlawful sexual connection occurred after the current s 86 was adopted and in force.  Taking these as the primary charges, I would still be inclined to apply at least a 50 per cent minimum non-parole period due to the significance of just these charges in isolation.  The offending in question was grave and caused considerable ongoing harm to the victims.  Even considering your remorse and low risk of reoffending, I consider that the vulnerability of your two victims and the seriousness of the ongoing impact on each of them are sufficient to justify at least a 50 per cent MPI.

[68]     I therefore do not consider it necessary to address separately an MPI for the offences falling under the old s 86 test, or the five indecency charges for which no MPI can be imposed.  I am convinced that even without considering those offences, a significant minimum non-parole period is justified.

[69]     While I might otherwise have imposed a higher MPI, taking into account your ill-health, I find that would be inappropriate as it would have a disproportionate effect on you.25  Accordingly, I impose a minimum term of imprisonment of five and a half years, which is less than the 50 per cent otherwise appropriate.

Result

[70]     Mr Watkins, I sentence you to a final sentence of 12 years and three months imprisonment to be served concurrently on the charges of rape and unlawful sexual connection, and a minimum period of imprisonment of five and a half years.  This is consistent with the sentencing approach under Band 4, which considers the totality of the offending in placing it into Band 4.

[71]     On the  charges  of indecent  assault  on  a  girl  under 12,  and  inducing  an indecent act with a girl under 12, I sentence you to seven years imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently with the rape charges.

……………………………….

Woolford J

25     R v Te Au [2012] NZHC 2705; aff ’d in T (CA702/2012) v R [2013] NZCA 505.