X (SC 94/2025) v The King - [2025] NZSC 175

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PROHIBITED BY S 201
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 94/2025
[2025] NZSC 175

BETWEEN	X (SC 94/2025) Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	R J T George for Applicant J G Fenton for Respondent
Judgment:	25 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant sexually abused his stepdaughter on a daily basis from the age of 6 until she was 14 years old, including an attempt to have sexual intercourse when she was 12. She reported it to her mother when she was 14, saying she wanted it to end. This it did for a period while the applicant was overseas. During that period the mother became unwell, and the complainant became her primary carer. When the applicant returned he resumed his abuse of his stepdaughter, saying that he would help look after the mother if the complainant would let him have sex with her. Reluctantly she agreed. Sexual intercourse began when she was 15, and continued once or twice a week thereafter. At 15 the complainant became pregnant and gave birth to the applicant’s child. When she said she would not have sex with the applicant again, he threatened to commit suicide. At 18 the abuse finally ended.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection together with representative charges involving allegations that he had committed indecent acts or engaged in sexual conduct with a dependent family member.
The complainant filed a victim impact statement stating that she had forgiven the applicant and “would not be against him getting out of prison”, adding “[I] think this would be best for my Mum considering her health, and would be helpful for me to be able to move on”.
The applicant was however sentenced to seven years and two months’ imprisonment.[1] He appealed against sentence, contending that the Judge erred in principle by failing to adjust the sentence to take into account the views of the victim of his offending.
[1]R v [X] [2024] NZDC 26397 (Judge Gilbert). No minimum period of imprisonment was imposed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.[2] It found the applicant may have indirectly placed pressure on the victim through her mother, and that the wording in the victim impact statement did not amount to a plea for leniency.[3] It said it would be wrong in principle to impose an overly lenient sentence to give effect to a victim’s views just as it would be inappropriate to impose an overly severe sentence to give effect to a victim’s views. That was “particularly so in cases of serious offending…

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 X (SC 94/2025) v The King

Details

AGLC: X (SC 94/2025) v The King [2025] NZSC 175
Case: [2025] NZSC 175
Decision Date: 25 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of X (SC 94/2025) v The King, the applicant, who had sexually abused his stepdaughter over a period of eight years, sought leave to appeal against his sentence of seven years and two months imprisonment. The applicant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and other related offences. Despite the victim's forgiveness and plea for leniency, the applicant's appeal against the sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offending.

The legal issues in this case centred around the weight to be given to the victim's impact statement and the principles governing sentencing in cases of serious sexual offending. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal erred in principle by not sufficiently considering the victim's views in determining the sentence. He contended that recent legislative developments and international trends supported greater victim participation in the criminal justice process.

The Supreme Court found that the criteria for leave to appeal were not satisfied. The Court held that the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance, but rather involved the application of well-established principles to the facts of the case. The Court of Appeal had correctly applied the law in considering the victim's impact statement, and the sentence imposed was appropriate given the severity of the offending. The Court concluded that there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice if the appeal was not heard, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders