Stainton v The King - [2023] NZHC 787

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 TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2022-463-151

[2023] NZHC 787

BETWEEN
LUKE STAINTON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 3 April 2023

Appearances:

W T Nabney for Appellant D P Coulson for Respondent

Judgment:

6 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF JOHNSTONE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 April 2023 at 3pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

STAINTON v R [2023] NZHC 787 [6 April 2023]

[1] Luke Timothy Stainton pleaded guilty to a charge of having sexual connection with a young person aged 15 years of age.1 On 8 November 2022, he was sentenced in the Tauranga District Court to serve two years and three months’ imprisonment.2

[2]Mr Stainton appeals against that sentence. The Crown opposes.

The offending

[3] At the beginning of September 2016, Mr Stainton was a 24-year-old youth leader at the Otumoetai Baptist Church in Tauranga. The complainant was a 14-year- old attending its youth group.

[4] Mr Stainton and the complainant began regular communication via text message. After a few weeks, Mr Stainton asked the complainant if she wished to engage in a relationship with him, and she agreed. The complainant had just turned 15 years old, and Mr Stainton had just turned 25.

[5] Mr Stainton and the complainant exchanged photographs of their genitalia. They proceeded to engage in sexual intercourse on a weekly basis during what the summary of facts describes as “the preceding year” but was clarified during the hearing as the succeeding year. Some of these encounters occurred inside the Otumoetai Baptist Church in the middle of the night. The relationship ended with Mr Stainton engaging in a relationship with another female.

The District Court decision

[6] Judge Cook sentenced Mr Stainton. Amongst other things, her Honour noted serious impacts on his victim, described in her victim impact statement. The victim takes the view that a range of mental health issues she has since suffered can be traced to her inappropriate relationship with Mr Stainton and its secrecy.

[7] Her Honour adopted a starting point for Mr Stainton’s offending of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 R v Stainton [2022] NZDC 22079.

[8] The Judge then made deductions of 25 per cent in light of Mr Stainton’s guilty plea, and 10 per cent for his good character, arriving at an end point of two years and three months’ imprisonment, which was the sentence imposed.

Appellant’s submissions

[9]For Mr Stainton, Mr Nabney submitted that:

(a)The Judge’s three-year, six-month starting point was too high. The Court of Appeal’s judgments in R v Hayward and Hawken v R can be distinguished on their facts.3

(b)The Judge’s deduction of 10 per cent for Mr Stainton’s otherwise good character was too low. A deduction in the range 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 Stainton v The King

Details

AGLC: Stainton v The King [2023] NZHC 787
Case: [2023] NZHC 787
Decision Date: 6 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Stainton appealed against a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment imposed by the Tauranga District Court for having sexual connection with a young person aged 15 years. The appeal centred on the starting point for the sentence, the discount for good character, the lack of a discount for remorse, and the need for a discount to reflect the youth of the offender and low risk of reoffending. The Crown opposed the appeal. The High Court considered whether the District Court erred in its sentencing and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment was well justified given the circumstances of the offending. The discount for good character was appropriately set at 10 per cent. There was no basis for a discount for remorse, given the lack of insight into the harm caused to the victim. However, the Court found that a further discount should have been applied to reflect the youth of the offender and low risk of reoffending. In substitution, the High Court imposed a sentence of four months’ home detention and cancelled registration on the Child Sex Offender Register.

The final orders were that Mr Stainton’s appeal was allowed, his original sentence was quashed and replaced with four months’ home detention, to commence on 6 April 2023, be served at the address specified in the PAC report dated 1 November 2022, and be subject to the proposed special conditions of home detention set out in that report, and his automatic registration on the Child Sex Offender Register should be cancelled, and discretionary registration should not be directed.

Orders