Legal Research
Cases
Senior v The Queen

Senior v The Queen

Case [2016] NZCA 389 10 August 2016

Criminal Liability

Jurisdiction

Inconsistent and/or Unreasonable Verdicts

Propensity Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA200/2015
[2016] NZCA 389

BETWEEN	ARTHUR SAMUEL ROY SENIOR Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	19 July 2016
Court:	Randerson, Venning and Fogarty JJ
Counsel:	R A Harrison for Appellant P D Marshall and E J Riddell for Respondent
Judgment:	10 August 2016 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction
Background
Reliability warning

RB
AP
SN
Conclusions on the s 122 issue

Should severance have been ordered?

The severance issue – analysis

Inconsistent and/or unreasonable verdicts

RB (counts 1 and 2)
JT
NM
TB

The prosecutor’s closing remarks to the jury
Sentence appeal

Discount for electronically monitored bail
The MPI

Result

[1]
[5]
[11]
[15]
[21]
[27]
[33]
[40]
[50]
[56]
[62]
[64]
[72]
[82]
[87]
[99]
[99]
[103]
[106]

Introduction

In December 2014 the appellant was convicted after a jury trial before MacKenzie J on a total of 35 counts of sexual offending and other offences relating to nine teenage girls. He was sentenced on 20 February 2015 to 15 years imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum period of seven and a half years.[1]
[1]R v Senior [2015] NZHC 236.
He now appeals against both conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal is advanced on four grounds:
(a)The Judge did not give an adequate warning on reliability in terms of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006.
(b)Some of the charges ought to have been severed since not all of the allegations of the complainants were cross-admissible as propensity evidence.
(c)There were inconsistent and/or unreasonable verdicts.
(d)The prosecutor’s closing remarks to the jury were unfairly prejudicial.
In support of the sentence appeal, two grounds are relied upon:
(a)The Judge ought to have given credit for the period the appellant had spent on electronically monitored bail.
(b)The minimum period of imprisonment imposed was excessive.
The appeal was filed out of time but the Crown does not oppose an extension of time. An extension of time is granted accordingly.

Background

We draw the following summary from the facts found at sentencing. The Judge began by recording the details of the counts upon which the appellant was convicted:
(a)Two counts of rape.
(b)Ten counts of unlawful sexual connection.
(c)One count of attempted rape.
(d)One count of sexual grooming.
(e)Seven counts of indecent assault.
(f)Eight counts of making an indecent publication.
(g)Six counts of supplying a Class C drug to a person under 18.
The appellant was originally charged with a total of 46 counts involving 10 complainants. However, he was acquitted on 11 counts. These acquittals included all counts relating to one of the complainants.
The appellant’s offending spanned a period of 25 years but was not continuous. The Judge…

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 Senior v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Senior v The Queen [2016] NZCA 389
Case: [2016] NZCA 389
Decision Date: 10 August 2016 at 2:30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arthur Samuel Roy Senior appeals against his conviction and sentence on 35 counts of sexual offending and other offences relating to nine teenage girls. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum period of seven and a half years. The conviction appeal is advanced on four grounds: the Judge did not give an adequate warning on reliability in terms of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006; some of the charges ought to have been severed since not all of the allegations of the complainants were cross-admissible as propensity evidence; there were inconsistent and/or unreasonable verdicts; and the prosecutor’s closing remarks to the jury were unfairly prejudicial. In support of the sentence appeal, two grounds are relied upon: the Judge ought to have given credit for the period the appellant had spent on electronically monitored bail; and the minimum period of imprisonment imposed was excessive. The appeal was filed out of time but the Crown does not oppose an extension of time. An extension of time is granted accordingly. The conviction appeal is dismissed. The sentence appeal is dismissed.

Orders