Legal Research
Cases
Sigley v The King

Sigley v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 2251 14 August 2024

Personal Circumstances

Totality Principle

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-000066

[2024] NZHC 2251

BETWEEN
DEAN BARRY SIGLEY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 5 August 2024

Counsel:

JPR Scott for Appellant

B O’Connor for Respondent

Judgment:

14 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 10 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei. Thode Utting, Auckland.

SIGLEY v R [2024] NZHC 2251 [14 August 2024]

The case

[1] Dean Sigley appeals a 12-year term of imprisonment for extensive sexual offending.1 Mr Sigley’s appeal must be allowed if there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed,2 or in short, if the sentence is manifestly excessive.3

Background

[2]Mr Sigley pleaded guilty to 19 charges:4

(a)Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (x 3).5

(b)Indecent act on a young person (x 2).6

(c)Sexual conduct with a child (x 2).7

(d)Knowingly making an objectionable publication (x 3).8

(e)Possession of an objectionable publication.9

(f)Intentionally making an intimate visual recording (x 7, including three representative charges).10

(g)Possession of an intimate visual recording (representative charge).11

1      R v Sigley [2024] NZDC 15814.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
3      Tutukangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482.
4      Mr Sigley maintains a not guilty plea in relation to an associated rape charge. I say no more about it for obvious reasons.
5      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B; maximum penalty, 20 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 134(3); maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment.
7      Section 132(3); maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
8      Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, s 124(1); maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
9      Section 131A(1); maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment or $50,000 fine.
10     Crimes Act, s 216H; maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment.
11     Section 216I; maximum penalty, three years’ imprisonment.

[3] The chronology begins 11 November 2023 when Mr Sigley’s fiancée examined his phone, thinking he had been unfaithful. She found photographs and videos of young girls and women that appeared to have been taken without their knowledge in private settings, such as a bathroom.

[4] A Police investigation began. The phone was found to contain 30,000 images. Not all have been examined.

R: a 15-year-old; offending between 1 January and 31 December 2008

[5]Mr Sigley was connected to R’s family and stayed with them from time to time.

[6] On two occasions in 2008, Mr Sigley entered R’s bedroom overnight, pulled up her t-shirt exposing her breasts, and touched her on and about the genitalia. R said nothing about the offending until after Mr Sigley’s arrest in 2023.

F: offending between 19 March 2020 and 2 July 2020

[7]Mr Sigley was closely connected to F, an adult.

[8] On three occasions between the dates above, Mr Sigley recorded himself inserting objects into F’s genitalia. The summary of facts says the “recordings are extremely close up and show the items fully inserted until out of…

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 Sigley v The King

Details

AGLC: Sigley v The King [2024] NZHC 2251
Case: [2024] NZHC 2251
Decision Date: 14 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Sigley appeals a 12-year term of imprisonment imposed for extensive sexual offences against multiple victims, including children. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or if there was an error warranting a different sentence. The appeal presented several arguments, including whether a discount should have been applied for the possibility of a restorative justice process, whether the starting point for the offending against one victim should have been lower, whether the global starting point should have been adjusted for totality, whether the guilty plea discount was inadequate, and whether the discount for personal circumstances was sufficient.

The court found that the contention regarding the restorative justice process was unsustainable as there was no evidence the victims would have been interested in such a process. The court also disagreed with the argument that the starting point for the offending against one victim should have been lower, holding that the 10-year starting point was within range. The court concluded that the guilty plea discount was appropriately set at 20 percent, considering the strength of the prosecution case. Regarding personal circumstances, the court noted that while Mr Sigley's history of childhood sexual abuse and its impact on his mental health were significant, the seriousness of the offending constrained the scope of the discount available.

Ultimately, the court found that the totality principle required an adjustment to the starting point, resulting in a deduction of 10 months' imprisonment for the sexual violation charges. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was quashed. A sentence of 11 years and two months' imprisonment was substituted, structured to reflect the adjusted term for the sexual violation charges.

Orders