Roberts v The King - [2023] NZHC 2360

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-30

[2023] NZHC 2360

BETWEEN
ISAAC TURETANAE ROBERTS

Appellant

AND

REX

Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2023

Appearances:

J A Westgate for Appellant

C E R Power for Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2023 at 2.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

ROBERTS v R [2023] NZHC 2360 [28 August 2023]

Introduction

[1] Isaac Roberts pleaded guilty to charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection1 and one charge of strangulation.2 Mr Roberts also pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching release conditions.3

[2] Judge Turner sentenced Mr Roberts to five years and 11 months’ imprisonment.4 He appeals that sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive.

Facts

[3] On 25 May 2022, the victim moved into a semi-detached property adjacent to Mr Roberts. Around 8:00 pm on the same day, Mr Roberts went to the victim’s house and introduced himself to her. Mr Roberts groped the victim’s buttock in her bedroom a short time later. He then followed her outside and kissed the left side of her throat and face. When the victim pulled away, Mr Roberts gripped her throat with one hand and kissed her on the mouth while strangling her. He then released her before pulling her back in and giving her a hickey (being a bruise caused by suction) on her throat.

[4] Mr Roberts told the victim she “You can call me Zax Dog and you are mine now”. He then stood up in front of the seated victim, pulled his penis out and grabbed the victim by her hair, forcing his penis into her mouth. The victim broke free and locked herself inside the house, barricading the entrance with a large fridge.

[5] Mr Roberts forced his way inside. Upon finding the victim hiding in her bedroom with her son, he left without further incident.

Impact on the victim

[6] The victim suffered bruising. She also suffered the stress of needing to find new accommodation despite the fact she and her son had only moved into the new residence the day the offending took place, hoping to start a new life outside of her

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(b), 128B; maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 189A(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 96(1); maximum penalty one years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Roberts [2023] NZDC 5901.

mother’s home. Both the victim and her son report psychological trauma from the offending. The victim’s now 11-year-old son appears to have been significantly impacted, with anger issues worsening following the incident and constant fear and anxiety for his mother’s safety.

District Court Decision

[7] Judge Turner noted Mr Roberts’ failure to attend a…

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 Roberts v The King

Details

AGLC: Roberts v The King [2023] NZHC 2360
Case: [2023] NZHC 2360
Decision Date: 28 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Roberts appeals against his sentence for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, strangulation, and breaching release conditions. He argues that the sentence of five years and eleven months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Crown submits that the sentence was justified by the nature and seriousness of the offending. The court considered the arguments and found that the sentence was within the range that could properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles. The court noted that the offending involved a high level of violence and violation of personal boundaries, with the presence of the victim’s young son as a witness adding to the severity. The court also found that the history of violence towards women, including a recent strangulation offence, justified the uplift for previous offending. The court rejected the argument that the background factors, including exposure to violence and alcohol abuse, warranted a greater discount. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

Orders