R v Webster - [2021] NZHC 1016

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS, OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF REFERENCES TO AND DETAILS OF MATTERS RELATING TO PERSONS CONNECTED TO THE DEFENDANT AT PARAGRAPHS [20] AND [21]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-070-3720

[2021] NZHC 1016

THE QUEEN

v

NATHANIEL EJAY PIKITEA WEBSTER

Hearing: 7 May 2021

Counsel:

A Pollett J Suttonfor Crown

T Rickard-Simms for Defendant

Sentence:

7 May 2021

[REDACTED] SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Tauranga

R v WEBSTER [2021] NZHC 1016 [7 May 2021]

[1] Mr Webster, you appear for sentence on 30 charges of physical and sexual violence against three young women over a period of about 20 years.1 You were found guilty by jury on 28 of those charges; and on the remaining two, you pleaded guilty. Twenty-four of the charges involve acts of serious sexual violation, each of which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.2 The Crown has also invited me to hand down a sentence of preventive detention.

[2]My sentence will be in four parts:

(a)first, I will talk about the facts of your offending;

(b)second, I will talk about your personal circumstances, including the risk factors identified by the psychologists who interviewed you;

(c)third, I will fix your sentence; and

(d)finally, I will assess whether you should be subject to a sentence of preventive detention.

1 Eight charges of sexual violation by rape, six of which are representative: Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Sixteen charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, 13 of which are representative: Crimes Act, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

One charge of kidnapping: Crimes Act, s 209. Maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Two charges of injuring with intent to injure (manual), one of which is a representative charge: Crimes Act, s 189(2). Each charge carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

One representative charge of assault with a weapon: Crimes Act, s 202C. Maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Two representative charges of male assaults female: Crimes Act, s 194(b). Each charge carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

2 Crimes Act, ss 128(1)(a), 128(b) and 128B.

Suppression

[3] Before I begin, I need to make some preliminary comments about suppression. All names and identifying features of the complainants are suppressed. I have anonymised my references to them accordingly. In addition, all references to other sexual violence towards persons connected to you, Mr Webster, are suppressed. Finally, I extend the interim order in relation to identifying particulars of your offending until I release the written version of these sentencing notes, at which time I will make a final decision as to whether that suppression should be extended.3

Facts

[4] Mr Webster, as the trial judge, I had the benefit…

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 Webster

Details

AGLC: R v Webster [2021] NZHC 1016
Case: [2021] NZHC 1016
Decision Date: 7 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathaniel Ejay Pikitea Webster was sentenced by Whata J in the High Court at Tauranga for multiple counts of sexual and physical violence against three victims over a period of about 20 years. The defendant was found guilty by jury on 28 of the 30 charges and pleaded guilty to the remaining two charges. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence, including whether preventive detention was warranted, and the minimum period of imprisonment. The primary legal issue was the appropriate sentence for the defendant's serious and extensive sexual and physical violence, and whether a sentence of preventive detention was necessary for the protection of the public.

In determining the sentence, the court considered the severity, frequency, and brutality of the defendant's offending, which involved multiple acts of serious violent, degrading, and physically traumatising abuse against three vulnerable victims. The court found an initial starting point of 18 years' imprisonment appropriate for the sexual violation charges, with an additional uplift of three years for other violent offending, resulting in a starting point of 21 years. The court also considered the defendant's background of exposure to violence, abuse, and deprivation, and his lack of remorse and denial of his offending. However, the court found that the defendant's ongoing denial and blaming of the victims, coupled with the seriousness of his offending, meant that he could not receive a further discount for his potential to rehabilitate. The court imposed a discount of 10 per cent, resulting in a sentence of 18 years and 10 months' imprisonment for the lead sexual violation offending, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and five months. The court also determined that preventive detention was necessary to protect the public from the defendant due to his pattern of serious offending, the high risk of future offending, and his denial of responsibility. The court imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and five months. The sentences for the other charges were to be served concurrently with the lead sentence.

Orders