Thomas v Police - [2022] NZHC 3622

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-2019-070-3841

[2022] NZHC 2622

THE KING

v

RICHARD WADE BOWMAN

Defendant

Hearing: 11 October 2022

Appearances:

BR Smith for the Crown

CR Horsley for the Defendant

Sentencing:

11 October 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga To: C Horsley, Tauranga

R v BOWMAN [2022] NZHC 2622 [11 October 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Bowman, you appear this morning for sentencing on a range of family violence and sexual offending charges. Your offending involved two victims, Ms T and Ms W. You pleaded guilty to the charges in relation to Ms T on the morning of trial. You were found guilty by a jury on the charges against Ms W. Ordinarily your sentencing would proceed in the District Court. However, the sentencing has been transferred to this Court, given the District Court considered a sentence of preventive detention may be appropriate, and only the High Court can impose that sentence. One of the key issues I must therefore decide today is whether you should receive a finite sentence of imprisonment, or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention.

[2] Given the number of charges involved and the need to consider both a potential finite sentence and preventive detention, there is a fair bit for me to work through this morning. So this will take a little time, and I ask you, and those who are here present in Court today to also please bear with me. Mr Bowman, I hope you listen to what I have to say.

[3] Mr Bowman, I know you continue to deny your offending against Ms W. As your counsel will no doubt have explained to you, however, I must sentence you in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. But even on your own view of the extent of your offending, there is no doubt that you have a pervasive and deep-seated problem with anger and self-control in your relationships with women. The pattern is clear to see across your offending history, from when you were a teenager. Whatever your view is of your most recent offending, you need to accept that you have a problem that needs to be fixed. I therefore urge you to take whatever opportunities are provided to you while you are in custody to treat what on any view are not normal or acceptable behaviours or attitudes within intimate partner relationships.

[4] Before I go further, I would also like to acknowledge Ms T and Ms W, and the courage that they have displayed in reading their victim impact statements here at Court today. That is not an easy task. Their statements demonstrate that offending such as yours, Mr Bowman, results in your partners feeling controlled, unsafe, overwhelmed, and experiencing ongoing emotional harm. Violence and control in

intimate partner relationships is…

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 Thomas v Police

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Police [2022] NZHC 2622
Case: [2022] NZHC 3622
Decision Date: 11 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bowman involved sentencing for a series of charges related to family violence and sexual offending against two victims, Ms T and Ms W. The defendant, Richard Wade Bowman, pleaded guilty to charges relating to Ms T and was found guilty by a jury for the charges against Ms W. The court had to decide between a finite sentence of imprisonment and the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court considered the defendant's extensive history of violent and controlling behaviour in intimate relationships, his lack of remorse, and expert assessments indicating a high risk of future offending. The court ultimately decided on a lengthy finite sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of eight years before parole eligibility, deeming it adequate for public protection while allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation and future risk reduction.

Orders