Threadgold v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-463-000053

[2021] NZHC 1539

BETWEEN
CLIFFORD JOHN THREADGOLD

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 15 June 2021

Counsel:

P J Morgan QC for appellant A McConachy for respondent

Judgment:

25 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

[Appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 June 2021 at 2:30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Eastside Law, Hamilton
Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Counsel: P J Morgan QC, Thackery Chambers, Hamilton

THREADGOLD v R [2021] NZHC 1539 [25 June 2021]

Introduction

[1] Clifford Threadgold pleaded guilty to charges of sexual connection with a young person1 and meeting a young person following sexual grooming.2 Judge P W Cooper sentenced Mr Threadgold to two years’ imprisonment.3 The Judge refused, however, to commute Mr Threadgold’s sentence to home detention.

Mr Threadgold appeals his sentence. The issues raised by his appeal are:

(a)Did the Judge err by applying an uplift for the grooming offence?

(b)Did the Judge err by placing too much weight on the victim impact statement?

(c)Did the Judge err by refusing to commute the sentence to home detention?

The offending

[3] On 31 July 2020, Mr Threadgold met the victim on an online dating app. The pair began communicating with each other through one of the private messaging platforms available on the app.

[4] The pair continued to message one another the following day. The conversation was centred around their respective ages, and the logistics involved with meeting each other to engage in sexual intimacy. Their messages included the following exchanges in relation to the victim’s age:

Threadgold: You are online late or early. Are you really 18? Would you be intimate with an older guy like me?

Victim: Well I’d like to think so. If I was like 14 would you still be intimate with me? Most people wouldn’t…

Threadgold: I can understand that. Especially after the recent reports of men getting caught and being charged with underage. If I said yes I would, you

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 131B(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) or (ii).
3      R v Threadgold [2021] NZDC 7599.

would probably think I was a pedo. I am not but have often wondered about being with someone mid-teens. I would be keen to hook up whatever your age.

Victim: So if I was 14 you’d still hook up with me? I’m not saying it in a bad way. I’m genuinely curious. But I get the whole reports thing, there have been a lot recently.

Threadgold: I would like to.

Victim: Well do you think I’m 14?

Threadgold: I have no idea.

[Victim then sends a photo]

….

Threadgold: I don’t want to offend but you could be, I think you are younger than 18 for sure….

Victim: Would that be a bad thing if I was? Not saying I am but is it bad?

Threadgold: No it wouldn’t be bad.

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 Threadgold v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Threadgold v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1539
Case: [2021] NZHC 1539
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clifford John Threadgold appeals against his sentence following a guilty plea to charges of sexual connection with a young person and meeting a young person following sexual grooming. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, refusing to commute this sentence to home detention. The appeal raises three issues: whether the Judge erred by applying an uplift for the grooming offence, whether the Judge erred by placing too much weight on the victim impact statement, and whether the Judge erred by refusing to commute the sentence to home detention. The Court finds that the uplift for the grooming offence was within the available range, the victim impact statement was appropriately considered as an aggravating feature of the offending, and the refusal to commute the sentence to home detention was justified. The appeal is dismissed, and the original sentence is upheld.

Orders