R v Woodhouse - [2013] NZHC 610

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 CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-009-9520 [2013] NZHC 610

REGINA

v

BARRY RONALD WOODHOUSE

Hearing: 26 March 2013

Counsel: B Hawes for Crown
S Bailey for Prisoner

Judgment: 26 March 2013

SENTENCING OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] Mr Woodhouse, what I have to say in sentencing you this morning will occupy some minutes, so you may remain seated and I will ask you to stand at a later point.

[2] As you know you are for sentence in relation to offences of sexual connection with a young person, a girl under 16 years of age, and indecent assault upon that
same girl.

R V WOODHOUSE HC CHCH CRI 2011-009-9520 [26 March 2013]

[3] In relation to those matters you were convicted following trial in the District Court in May 2012. The trial Judge, Judge McDonald subsequently declined jurisdiction and committed you to this Court for sentence because the Crown indicated its intention to seek a sentence of preventive detention.

[4] There is also a charge of breaching an extended supervision order, to which you have very recently pleaded guilty, and which has been transferred to this Court so that all matters could be dealt with at once. That charge relates to the same girl, and the breach is that as a result of the extended supervision order to which you were subject, you were not to associate with girls under 16 years of age, unless that was supervised through the presence of another informed adult. In breach of that condition in early 2011 you were in association with this young girl over a period of some months.

The present offending

[5] The present offending occurred as I have just noted in 2011, and when the complainant was aged 15 years. She turned 16 years of age on 30 June that year. You knew her age because it had been the subject of discussion and at one point she had actually shown you her passport. You met through mutual acquaintances, although of course you were then 53 years of age, but nonetheless mixing in the company of much younger people.

[6] On a night shortly before the February earthquake she stayed over at your house. By that point there had been a deal of contact including text messages, provision by you of alcohol to her, and you had also sent her sketches accompanied by a poem, which had a blatantly sexual content. During the night of the stay over, you had intercourse with her. Her description of that at trial, was that you simply climbed on top of her, intercourse occurred, and she felt sick.

[7] The indecent assault occurred in August 2011. The complainant was one of a group of four young people who came to your home. A drinking game ensued. As a result, she became intoxicated and went into your bedroom to lie down.…

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 Woodhouse

Details

AGLC: R v Woodhouse [2013] NZHC 610
Case: [2013] NZHC 610
Decision Date: 26 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court was Regina v Barry Ronald Woodhouse, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. Woodhouse was convicted of sexual connection with a young person under 16 years of age and indecent assault upon the same girl. The trial judge declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the High Court for sentencing due to the Crown's intention to seek a sentence of preventive detention. Additionally, Woodhouse had pleaded guilty to breaching an extended supervision order, which prohibited him from associating with girls under 16 unless supervised by an adult. The legal issues before the court were whether Woodhouse qualified for a sentence of preventive detention and what the appropriate sentence should be for his convictions and the breach of the extended supervision order.

The court considered expert reports and submissions from both counsel. The reports indicated that Woodhouse had a history of sexual offending against adolescent girls over a period of 13 years. Despite some participation in treatment programs, Woodhouse had reoffended multiple times, including while under an extended supervision order. The court determined that Woodhouse qualified for preventive detention as he had committed multiple qualifying offences, was likely to reoffend, and a lengthy fixed term sentence would not adequately protect society. The court also considered the principle that a fixed term sentence should be preferred over preventive detention if it would provide adequate protection. However, in Woodhouse's case, the court found that a term of even six years imprisonment would not meet the risk he posed to the community.

Accordingly, the court imposed a sentence of preventive detention for the crimes of unlawful sexual connection and indecent assault. Woodhouse was also sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for the breach of the extended supervision order. The court fixed a minimum term of five years before the risk posed by Woodhouse would require reassessment.

Orders