Sands v The King
[2025] NZHC 2425
•25 August 2025
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 time later he returned with the morning after pill.
[9] The representative charge relates to three incidents all of which occurred when the victim was 15 years old. On 10 December 2021 the victim was at Mr Sands’ home with her mother and stepfather who were drinking with Mr Sands. Mr Sands gave the victim alcohol. At around 1:00 am the victim’s parents went home but the victim stayed with Mr Sands. While they were talking Mr Sands asked the victim to kiss his penis, which she did.
[10] In April 2022 the victim was at Mr Sands’ home with her parents, Mr Sands and his partner. They were all drinking in Mr Sands’ shed. They got into a circle and danced together with their arms around each other. While this was happening Mr Sands put his hand down the back of the victim’s pants and digitally penetrated her. The victim allowed this to happen.
[11] In May 2022 Mr Sands was at a birthday party also attended by the victim and her parents. While Mr Sands and the victim were walking home together he asked her to perform oral sex on him, which she did.
Law
Legislative framework
[12] The Register was established by the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 (Act). The purpose of the Act is to:4
[…] establish a Child Sex Offender Register that will reduce sexual reoffending against child victims, and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders, by –
(a)providing government agencies with the information needed to monitor child sex offenders in the community, including after the completion of the sentence; and
4 Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, s 3.
(b)providing up-to-date information that assists the Police to more rapidly resolve cases of child sexual offending.
Registrable offenders
[13] Schedule 2 of the Act sets out certain “qualifying offences”.5 There are three classes of qualifying offences – classes 1, 2 and 3 – categorised in an ascending order of seriousness. The offence of which Mr Sands has been convicted is a class 3 offence.6
[14] Registration is mandatory for qualifying offenders who receive a custodial sentence.7 Depending on whether an offender is convicted of a class 1, 2 or 3 qualifying offence, he or she will be subject to the reporting obligations imposed by the Act for periods of eight years, 15 years or life respectively.8
[15] When a Court imposes a non-custodial sentence, it has a discretion to make a registration order.9 If it does the offender is subject to reporting obligations for eight years.10
[16] The discretion to make a registration order is not unfettered. A Court may only make a registration order if it is satisfied that the offender “poses a real risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or of children generally”.11 For the purpose of assessing that risk the Court must consider the following matters:12
(a)the seriousness of the qualifying offence:
(b)the period of time that has elapsed since the offence was committed:
(c)the age of the person:
5 Section 4.
6 Schedule 2.
7 Section 7(1)(a).
8 Section 35(1)(a)–(c).
9 Section 9(1).
10 Section 35(1)(d).
11 Section 9(2).
12 Section 9(3).
(d)the age of the person at the time of the offence:
(e)the age of any victim of the offence at the time of the offence:
(f)the difference in age between the victim and the person at the time of the offence:
(g)any written assessment of the risk posed by the person:
(h)any submission or evidence from any victim of the offence:
(i)any other submission or evidence relating to the risk posed by the person:
(j)any other matter that the court considers relevant.
[17] In D(SC31/2019) v NZ Police the majority of the Supreme Court held that the judicial exercise of deciding whether to make a registration order involves a two-stage process.13 First, the Court must be satisfied that an offender poses a real and genuine risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or of children more generally, having considered the s 9(3) factors.14 That is a threshold assessment. The risk need not be high in order to be real and genuine.15
[18] Secondly, if the threshold is met, the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to make a registration order having regard to the level of risk posed by the offender. At this stage the Court must assess the nature and seriousness of the risk posed by the offender.16 Section 9(3) factors are relevant to this assessment.17 The Court must then determine whether the risk is sufficient to warrant making a registration order and subjecting the offender to the requirements of the Act. This
13 D (SC 31/2019) v NZ Police [2021] NZSC 2, [2021] 1 NZLR 213 at [104]–[108] and [260].
14 At [105].
15 At [105] and [128]. See also W v Police [2025] NZCA 15 at [32].
16 At [106].
17 At [107].
assessment requires balancing the protective objectives of the registration order18 against the intrusion into the rights of the offender.19
Consequences of registration
[19] The Act primarily imposes reporting obligations on registered offenders. Breach of those obligations is a criminal offence.20 An offender must report all relevant personal information to the Commissioner of Police.21 Relevant personal information include the offender’s place of residence and details about children residing there, employment details, affiliations with clubs and organisations with child membership or participation in its activities, motor vehicles, distinguishing features of the offender such as tattoos or scars, passport details, telecommunication details, internet service provider details, online user names, details of any website administered or owned by the offender, and email addresses.
[20] Reporting obligations are ongoing. An offender must make annual periodic reports to confirm the information in a previous report remains correct.22 Any change to personal information must be reported within 72 hours of the change occurring,23 save that a change of address must be notified at least 48 hours before the change occurs.24 A registered offender must not change his or her name without the Commissioner’s prior approval.25
[21] Travel plans must be reported.26 Travel within New Zealand away from the registered residential address for more than 48 hours must be reported 48 hours in advance.27 The report must include each address at which the offender intends to stay at, the dates of the various stays, whether a child resides or is likely to reside at any of those addresses, and the intended date of return.
18 To reduce sexual reoffending against children and the risk posed by child sex offenders; as discussed above at [12].
19 D (SC 31/2019) v NZ Police, above n 13, at [108].
20 Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, ss 39 and 40.
21 Sections 16 and 17.
22 Section 18(3).
23 Section 20(1)(b).
24 Section 20(1)(a).
25 Section 53(1).
26 Sections 21 – 23 and sch 1, pt 2.
27 Section 21(1) –(2).
[22] Overseas travel must also be reported at least 48 hours before departure. The offender must report the date of departure, the address where he or she intends to stay and the date of return to New Zealand.28 On returning, the offender must report their return to the Commissioner and present their passport for inspection and copying.29
[23] The Register is not publicly available. Only persons authorised by the Commissioner may access it.30 The Act provides for the sharing of information on the Register between Government agencies in limited circumstances for purposes aligned with the purposes of the Act.31 The government agencies permitted to share information are the Police, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Social Development, Kāinga Ora, Department of Internal Affairs, New Zealand Customs Service and any other specified agency notified in the Gazette.32
[24] The reporting obligations imposed by the Act are enforced by criminal sanctions. In W v NZ Police,33 after referring to the Supreme Court in D (SC31/2019) v New Zealand Police assessing the various restrictions set out in the Act,34 the Court of Appeal concluded that:35
[89] It should also be noted that generally, the main effect of being on the Register is the imposition of disclosure obligations. The registered offender must keep the Commissioner informed of certain matters. But, subject to one exception, the offender is not required to seek the Commissioner’s permission. To that extent the registration regime is largely an information sharing exercise and far less intrusive than, for example, the intense monitoring and restrictions on liberty that occur under an extended supervision order. Under those orders, a probation officer is able to exercise extensive control over an offender’s life and dictate what they can and cannot do.
[90] We conclude that although the restrictions arising from registration are not insignificant, they are limited. That is a finding which we consider accords with the Supreme Court’s analysis in D v New Zealand Police.
28 Section 21(3)–(6).
29 Section 23(2).
30 Section 41(1).
31 Section 43.
32 Section 43(2).
33 W v Police, above n 15.
34 D (SC31/2019) v New Zealand Police, above n 13, at [89] – [92].
35 W v Police, above n 15.
Approach to appeal
[25] For appeal purposes a registration order is treated as a sentence to which Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) applies.36 The Court must allow an appeal if satisfied there was an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed.37 Otherwise the appeal must be dismissed.38
[26] The Court of Appeal has recently observed that when the lower court has not applied the mandated approach described by the Supreme Court in D (SC 31/2019) v New Zealand Police it is not uncommon for the appeal court to apply those requirements itself.39
District Court decision
Sentence
[27] In sentencing Mr Sands, Judge Bidois adopted a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment.40 The Judge considered the aggravating factors of Mr Sands’ offending to include: the profound effect of the offending; the period of time over which it occurred (13 months); the number of occasions on which it occurred; and the seriousness of the sexual connection, including intercourse on one occasion. He also took into account the vulnerability of the victim given her age; the age disparity; [redacted]; [redacted]; and the trust that she had in Mr Sands. The Judge acknowledged that, in his view, the offending was not a breach of trust in the ordinary sense. 41
[28] The Judge considered mitigating factors warranting sentence reductions to be Mr Sands’ guilty plea; remorse; efforts towards rehabilitation including counselling he had paid for; offer of reparation; lack of previous convictions; and contribution to the community.42 He took into account that Mr Sands has no previous convictions. The
36 Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, s 9(4).
37 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
38 Section 250(3).
39 Brightwell v R [2024] NZCA 559 at [34]. See for example Haack v R [2024] NZHC 112.
40 R v Sands, above n 2, at [14].
41 At [12].
42 At [13] and [15].
Judge applied reductions of 50 percent in total, giving an end sentence of 21 months imprisonment.43
[29] The Judge converted this to 10 and a half months’ home detention.44 The Judge noted: the importance of deterrence; that this is Mr Sands first offending; that he was charged 15 months after the last incident with no new offending during that period or since; and that he was on bail for a considerable period of time with no issues.45 The Judge also noted that Mr Sands had received some treatment that would continue on home detention.46 Mr Sands is subject to six months standard and post-detention conditions, with the Court recommending that Corrections consider psychological assessment for further sex offending-focussed treatment, including the SAFE programme.47
Registration
[30] As to registration, the Judge noted counsel’s reference to the required two-stage process.48 He later went on:
[20] Although you have undertaken some counselling and you have been identified in both the pre-sentence report and the psychological report as a low risk of re-offending, the fact that you are a first offender and that you were a married man with two children at the time of this offending, yet you still went next door and sexually offended against a minor, that shows that your thinking is, as your lawyer said simplistic. But obviously it was sexual gratification you were after, because you say in the report that you had a happy life both sexually and in all other respects within your own family, yet you sought gratification elsewhere. So, there will be registration.
[21] I do not know whether you have got the insight that is necessarily consistent with a low risk assessment as identified. There is no update on what treatment you have had or what progress you have made. I take into account your wife’s comments, but even in your own probation report, as recently as 30 January there are still some concerns about remorse and minimisation and blaming the victim in some way.
43 At [16].
44 At [17].
45 At [16].
46 At [16].
47 At [18].
48 At [11].
Discussion
[31] Mr Munro for Mr Sands submits that he does not pose a real and genuine risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children, or children generally; and that any risk that may exist is not sufficiently grave to warrant registration. The Crown disagrees.
[32] Counsel agree that although Judge Bidois referred to the two-stage exercise set out in D v New Zealand Police he did not expressly carry it out. I do so now, with reference to the mandatory considerations set out in s 9(3) of the Act and counsels’ competing submissions.
Section 9(3)(a): Seriousness of qualifying offences.
[33] Mr Sands was convicted of two charges under s 134(1) of the Crimes Act, one representative. This is a Class 3 offence under the Act, which is the most serious category. If Mr Sands had been sentenced to imprisonment he would automatically have been registered for life. The offending involved one incident of intercourse and others of digital penetration and oral sexual contact.
Section 9(3)(b): Period of time since offending
[34] The most recent offending was in May 2022. Mr Sands was charged 15 months later.
Section 9(3)(c) – (f): Ages and age difference
[35] Mr Sands was aged between 32 and 33 during the period of his offending. The victim was 14 and 15. The age gap is around 18 years. I consider that is a significant age gap in the present context. [redacted]. [redacted]. There was a power imbalance. When the victim was at Mr Sands’ home he was in a position of trust.
Section 9(3)(g): Reports
[36] Mr Munro understandably emphasises that the author of the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report dated 30 January 2025 assessed Mr Sands’ risk of re-offending to be low. Dr Kettner, the registered clinical psychologist who has seen
Mr Sands for rehabilitation therapy treatment, agrees that Mr Sands’ risk is “likely in the low range”.
[37] Ms Pollett for the Crown refers to other aspects of the PAC report which she submits indicate Mr Sands’ ongoing risk to children. The author reports that Mr Sands did not confirm the offending took place, but accepted he should be held accountable. There are elements of victim blaming. Mr Sands “continuously mentioned” that the offending was initiated by the victim. He is reported to say he was under continued pressure which he did not handle well and which led to an inappropriate sexual relationship with the victim. He said he felt under immense stress when contacted by the victim over an extended period. The writer reports that Mr Sands had to be informed that the “onus of guilt” cannot lie with the victim given her age and Mr Sands’ duty of care as an adult.
[38] The report writer noted that Mr Sands’ guilt and remorse was not for the victim but for his family who he says have been greatly affected. The report writer was also concerned that Mr Sands had not fully disclosed the nature of his offending to his supportive family members.
[39] In his letter of 4 February 2025 Dr Kettner notes that there are no other indications of sexual deviance in Mr Sands’ background. He reports there is no evidence of mental health disturbances that contributed to the offending, other than alcohol use. Mr Sands appears to have a successful marriage with no indication of a sexual preference for children. Dr Kettner considers Mr Sands offending is better explained by his “relatively simplistic and naïve worldview, rather than an underlying sexual deviancy”. Dr Kettner reports that Mr Sands has shown some increased insight into his offending, with “some improvement in his maladaptive and quite unsophisticated thinking regarding personal and sexual boundaries”.
Section 9(3)(h): Submissions from victims
[40] The victim and her mother each provided victim impact statements. The victim’s mother explains the personal connections between the two families. She considers Mr Sands’ conduct to be a significant breach of trust and friendship. She
has written separately to this Court in relation to registration. She strongly opposes the appeal.
Section 9(3)(i) and (j): other submissions/evidence or matters the Court considers relevant
[41] Ms Pollett submits that the sexual conduct involved in the offending, the breach of trust, the degree of premeditation and deceit after the offending all favour registration.
Does Mr Sands pose a real and genuine risk to the sexual safety of children?
[42] Mr Munro submits Mr Sands does not pose a risk to children generally. He says Mr Sands’ offending involved consensual sexual interactions with someone he had a prior established relationship with. Mr Munro acknowledges that this does not justify or excuse Mr Sands’ criminal actions, but submits it is relevant to assessing his risk profile.
[43] Mr Munro reports advice from Mr Sands’ probation officer that he is due to start the SAFE programme. Mr Munro submits this will further decrease Mr Sands’ low risk of re-offending. Counsel also points out that, with Crown consent, Mr Sands’ bail conditions and now the terms of his sentence allow him to have continued contact with his children.
[44] Nevertheless, taking into account all the material referred to above I consider Mr Sands does pose a real and genuine risk to the sexual safety of children for the purposes of s 9(2). Mr Sands is 18 years older than the victim. [redacted]. Their prior established relationship, to which Mr Munro refers, arose out of Mr Sands’ friendship with the victim’s parents. Some of the offending occurred at or shortly after social events attended by them all. Mr Sands had their trust. These are all factors which should have protected the victim. They instead led to the opportunity for Mr Sands’ repeated offending over a period of 13 months. Mr Sands’ excessive alcohol consumption is also a contributing factor that needs to be addressed.
[45] Mr Munro submits that the Court should not go beyond Dr Kettner’s risk assessment and that of the PAC report writer that Mr Sands risk of re-offending is low. However I accept Ms Pollett’s submission that these reports also indicate Mr Sands has continued to minimise his offending and blame the victim. Dr Kettner says there has been “some increased insight” and “some improvement”, but further progress is required. In the meantime, I consider Mr Sands remains real and genuine risk to the sexual safety of children. As noted, a low risk can still be real and genuine.49
Exercise of discretion
[46] I am also satisfied that the nature and seriousness of the risk is sufficient to warrant registration.
[47] Mr Munro submits that the punitive effects of registration are disproportionate to the risk posed by Mr Sands. He says it will not assist with reintegration or rehabilitation and overlooks the progress that Mr Sands has already made. As noted, he submits that risk will reduce further during home detention and following the completion of the SAFE programme. Mr Munro says some of the extensive reporting obligations are not relevant to Mr Sands’ offending.
[48] However, Mr Sands’ offending was serious, repeated, and carried out over a 13-month period. Further progress is required in terms of Mr Sands’ insight and understanding in order to reduce the risk he poses. I am satisfied that requiring Mr Sands to comply with the reporting obligations set out in the Act will mitigate that risk, and is proportionate. As noted above, the Court of Appeal has recently concluded that although the restrictions arising from registration are not insignificant, they are limited.50
49 D (SC 31/2019) v NZ Police, above n 15.
50 W v Police, above n 15, at [128].
Decision
[49]The appeal is dismissed.
Robinson J
0