R v Wynyard - [2023] NZHC 123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000313

[2023] NZHC 123

THE KING

v

ROBERT HOWARD GLADWIN WYNYARD

Hearing: 7 February 2023

Appearances:

Jacob Barry and Isabelle Archibald for the Crown Justin Harder and Nicola Wright for the Defendant

Sentencing Notes:

7 February 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

[Redacted version for publication]

R v WYNYARD [2023] NZHC 123 [7 February 2023]

Background

[1] Robert Wynyard, at the age of 74 you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 11 charges covering various forms of indecency committed against eight boys. For completeness there are nine charges of indecency between a man and a boy1 and two charges of indecent assault on a boy under 12.2 Furthermore, of those charges, four are representative meaning that the offending alleged was committed in a similar way on multiple occasions.

The offending

[2] I will first begin by describing the facts of your offending. These are set out in the summary of facts which your counsel, Mr Harder, advises you accept. The facts will obviously be familiar to you. But because sentencing is such a quintessentially public function which is required to be undertaken in open Court, it is important that I set these out.

[3] In April 2020, the Police opened an investigation codenamed “Operation Beverley”. It was an inquiry into historical sexual offending against children by former members of staff at Dilworth School (“Dilworth). You were employed as a teacher at Dilworth for six years between 1977 and 1983. In the last three years you were the Senior Housemaster of MacMurray House, one of several boarding houses which accommodated boys between Standard 4 and Form 7. Members of boarding houses were confined to the school grounds six days a week and had very limited contact with parents, guardians, and family. So that is the context.

[4] I now turn to the individual charges which I shall discuss in chronological order. I have anonymised the names of your victims because even if I was to use their initials, there is sufficient information in the following descriptions of what happened, as has been used in this Court in submissions, for others hearing or reading these comments to join the dots and thereby identifying them. The law automatically protects victims’ identities and so I shall simply refer to each alphabetically. In doing so I mean no disrespect to these eight brave men who have come forward to tell their

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 140(1)(a). Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 140(1)(a). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

stories. It is simply that the law requires me not to divulge any information which might lead to their identification. They are entitled to that privacy for obvious reasons.

Offending against A

[5] Your first offending was in 1980. It was against A. A was aged 12 to 13 years. He was a student in your class. At the time you were 32.

[6] You asked…

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 Wynyard

Details

AGLC: R v Wynyard [2023] NZHC 123
Case: [2023] NZHC 123
Decision Date: 7 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Howard Gladwin Wynyard appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for sentencing on charges of indecency and indecent assault against eight boys, with the offences spanning from 1980 to 2002. Wynyard, a former teacher and housemaster at Dilworth School, pleaded guilty to 11 charges, including nine counts of indecency between a man and a boy and two counts of indecent assault on a boy under 12 years. Four of the charges were representative, indicating repeated similar offences. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes, the harm caused to the victims, and any mitigating factors present.

The primary legal issues revolved around establishing a suitable starting point for sentencing, considering both the maximum penalties for the charges and the aggravating factors of the crimes. The court also had to evaluate mitigating factors, including Wynyard's guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, reparation payments made to the victims, and his own history of being a victim of sexual abuse. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the profound and enduring impact of the offences on the victims.

Moore J, in delivering the judgment, meticulously outlined the facts of the case, highlighting the scale, duration, and premeditation of the offences, as well as the breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victims. The court identified several aggravating factors such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the planning involved, and the significant breach of trust. It set a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, adjusted downwards for totality, and applied discounts for guilty pleas, remorse, and reparation. Despite acknowledging Wynyard's personal history of abuse, the court determined that the extensive nature of his offending did not warrant further mitigation. Ultimately, the court sentenced Wynyard to six years and three months' imprisonment, with certain sentences to run concurrently, and mandated his registration on the Child Sex Offender Register.

The final orders of the court were that Wynyard be sentenced to imprisonment terms on each of the charges, with specific durations and concurrent arrangements, and that he be registered as a child sex offender under the relevant legislation.

Orders