R v White - [2022] NZHC 607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-004366

[2022] NZHC 607

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER JAMES WHITE

Hearing: 29 March 2022

Appearances:

J E Lancaster for Crown

M Starling and N R Wham for Defendant

Judgment:

29 March 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF EATON J

R v WHITE [2022] NZHC 607 [29 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr White, I am now going to sentence you on the charge of sexual connection with a young person, a charge to which you pleaded guilty on 30 June 2021. Your guilty plea was entered in the District Court but because of your past similar offending on young persons, your sentencing was transferred to this Court for consideration of the sentence of preventive detention. I am sure that has been explained to you by your counsel.

[2] When you were convicted in the District Court you were given a second strike warning.1 But given the time that has passed since then I am going to repeat that warning to you now:

Because of your conviction on a charge of sexual connection on a young person, you are now subject to the three strikes law and this is now your final warning, and this warning will explain the consequences of you committing another serious violent offence. Today you will be given a written notice which contains a list of these “serious violent” offences.

(a)If you are convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder or manslaughter, then you will be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment for each offence and that will be served without parole or early release unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

(b)If you are convicted of manslaughter committed after this warning, you will be sentenced to imprisonment for life and the Judge must order you to serve at least 20 years’ imprisonment unless the Judge considers it would be manifestly unjust to do so, in which case the Judge must order you to serve a minimum of at least 10 years’ imprisonment.

(c)If you are convicted of murder after this warning then:

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86B.

(i)you must be sentenced to imprisonment for life and the Judge must order you to serve this sentence without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so; and

(ii)if the Judge finds that it is manifestly unjust to do so then the Judge must impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 20 years unless that would be manifestly unjust, in which case the Judge must sentence you to a different minimum period of imprisonment.

(d)And, if you are sentenced to preventive detention you must serve the maximum term of imprisonment of the most serious offence you are convicted of unless a Judge considers it would be manifestly unjust to do so.

[3]So that completes the warning, the final warning, Mr White.

The offending

[4] As regards your current offending, this is a public Court, and…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2022] NZHC 607
Case: [2022] NZHC 607
Decision Date: 29 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v White, the defendant, Christopher James White, pleaded guilty to the charge of sexual connection with a young person, which was committed in June 2021. The sentencing hearing took place on 29 March 2022, where the court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, as well as the defendant's history of similar offences. The court also had to decide whether a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from the ongoing risk posed by the defendant.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both the Crown and the defence, the court found that the aggravating factors of the case included the victim's vulnerability, the age difference between the defendant and the victim, the intrusiveness of the act, and the harm caused to the victim. The mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea and his remorse, though the court found that his level of remorse was not sufficient to warrant a significant discount.

The court also considered the defendant's history of similar offences, which demonstrated a clear pattern of serious sexual offending. The health assessors' reports indicated that the defendant had a tendency to commit serious offences in the future and that he had failed to fully embrace responsibility for his offending and make genuine efforts to rehabilitate. However, the court also noted that the defendant had engaged in treatment in the past and that he may benefit from further treatment to address his longstanding sexual deviancy.

Taking all of these factors into account, the court decided that a sentence of preventive detention was not necessary in this case. The court found that the possibility of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) being imposed, in addition to the finite sentence, provided sufficient protection for the community. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of two years and seven months, to be served without parole, and reminded him that he was on a final strike warning.

Orders