Sands v The King - [2025] NZHC 2425

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2025-463-000016 [2025] NZHC 2425

BETWEEN
SCOTT SANDS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 28 April 2025

Appearances:

A Gruebner on behalf of J Munro for the Appellant A Pollett for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Appeal against registration]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 August 2025 at 4:00 pm

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
J Munro, Rotorua Pollett Legal, Tauranga

SANDS v R [2025] NZHC 2425 [25 August 2025]

[1] Mr Sands has pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual connection with a young person, one of which was representative.1 On 10 February 2025, Judge L M Bidois sentenced Mr Sands to 10 and a half months’ home detention and made an order that he be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register (Register).2 Mr Sands was also ordered to pay his victim $5,000 in reparations for emotional harm.3

[2]Mr Sands appeals the decision to place him on the Register.

The offending

[3] The offending is set out in the Crown’s summary of facts dated 30 October 2024.

[4] Mr Sands had known the victim and her family for several years. [Redacted]. During the period of the offending the victim developed what she at times described to others as a “crush” on Mr Sands.

[5] The first offence occurred on 29 April 2021 when the victim was aged 14 and Mr Sands was 32. The victim and Mr Sands were communicating on Facebook Messenger. He asked her to come over to his house to talk. They met at his letterbox. Mr Sands asked the victim for a hug. He then put the victim’s hands down his pants so they touched his penis. The pair fell over. As they fell Mr Sands tried to pull down the victim’s pants.

[6] The victim pulled Mr Sands up and assisted him into his house. Once inside, Mr Sands put his hands down her pants and touched her vagina. He then pulled the victim’s pants down and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim allowed this to happen.

[7] After it stopped Mr Sands told the victim they needed to delete their messages from their phones. He watched to ensure the victim deleted her messages. Then she walked home.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1). Maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Sands [2025] NZDC 2380.
3 At [19].

[8] The next morning Mr Sands messaged the victim to ask if they could talk. When they met he told the victim his drink had been spiked and he could not remember the events of the previous evening. He asked the victim if they had used protection. She said they had not. He told the victim he would get her the morning after pill. A short…

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 Sands v The King

Details

AGLC: Sands v The King [2025] NZHC 2425
Case: [2025] NZHC 2425
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Sands appeals the decision to place him on the Child Sex Offender Register. Sands was convicted of two charges of sexual connection with a young person, one of which was representative. The District Court imposed a sentence of 10 and a half months' home detention and ordered Sands be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register. Sands argues that he does not pose a real and genuine risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or of children generally, and that any risk that may exist is not sufficiently grave to warrant registration. The Crown submits that Sands does pose a real and genuine risk to the sexual safety of children and that the nature and seriousness of the risk is sufficient to warrant registration.

The High Court found that the District Court did not expressly carry out the two-stage exercise set out in D v New Zealand Police. The Court carried out the exercise with reference to the mandatory considerations set out in s 9(3) of the Act and counsels’ competing submissions. The Court was satisfied that Sands does pose a real and genuine risk to the sexual safety of children for the purposes of s 9(2). The Court was also satisfied that the nature and seriousness of the risk is sufficient to warrant registration. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court are that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders