R v Wilson - [2018] NZHC 3117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-083-1624

[2018] NZHC 3117

THE QUEEN

v

STEWART MURRAY WILSON

Hearing: 29 November 2018

Appearances:

R M A McCoubrey and M J Mortimer for Crown A J McKenzie and L M Drummond for Defendant

Judgment:

29 November 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v WILSON [2018] NZHC 3117 [29 November 2018]

[1] Mr Wilson, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury of sexual offending against three separate complainants. The offending in question occurred between 1972 and early 1980.

[2] The charges on which you were found guilty range from four counts of rape through to burglary and charges of indecent assault and threatening to kill. I will outline each of these as I describe the factual basis for your offending.

The facts

JC

[3] The first set of charges in time relates to a complainant known as JC. She was living in a flat in Majoribanks Street in Wellington in 1971. You later told police that you were also living in that street at about that time with your then partner. The complainant saw you and your then partner walking down the street. She noticed that your partner had black eyes. She had come from an abusive relationship herself and she felt sorry for your partner. She therefore struck up a form of relationship with her. On one occasion she said she went to your address while you were absent and assisted your partner to clean the kitchen walls.

[4] The complainant moved out of that address after a short time and rented an apartment some distance away. She told the jury that at about 9 pm one night she was in her apartment. Her two year old daughter was asleep in a bed in her bedroom. She then heard a banging on the door. When she asked who was at the door, you called out “It’s Murray Wilson”. She did not open the door. She was terrified and hid under the bed. Her evidence was that you then broke into her apartment by smashing a hole through the door. At trial photographs were shown of the door in the flat. The damage from the incident is still visible.

[5] She says she was lying under the bed as you remained in the room. When you left she telephoned the police. The police arrived and searched the grounds, but could find no trace of you. After the police had left, however, she felt an arm around her throat and you began immediately making threats to her. There followed a bizarre incident in which you told the complainant you had a desire to take a good-looking

woman out to dinner. You then made her get dressed and you walked her through the streets of Wellington to a hotel, where you forced her to eat a meal she did not want. She believes you must have slipped something…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2018] NZHC 3117
Case: [2018] NZHC 3117
Decision Date: 29 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of the Queen v Stewart Murray Wilson, where the defendant was found guilty of multiple charges of sexual offences against three separate complainants, spanning from 1972 to early 1980. The charges against Wilson included rape, burglary, indecent assault, and threatening to kill. The legal issues the court had to decide involved determining an appropriate sentence for Wilson, taking into account the 1996 sentence imposed by Heron J and the totality principle.

In reaching the decision, the court considered the 1996 sentence imposed by Heron J and the impact of the previous sentence on the current charges. The court determined that the sentence should be increased by two years eight months imprisonment to reflect Wilson's culpability on the present charges. The court also took into account aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the final sentence. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence of two years four months imprisonment for each charge of rape, one year two months imprisonment for the charge of attempted rape, one year four months imprisonment for the charge of burglary, six months imprisonment for the charge of threatening to kill, and 12 months imprisonment for each of the remaining charges. All of these sentences are to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of two years four months imprisonment.

The court further explained that it would not have imposed a sentence of home detention, even if it were available, due to the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and accountability. The final orders of the court are for Wilson to serve an effective sentence of two years four months imprisonment.

Orders