IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND THE QUEEN PETER CHARLES HALLMOND. Fisher J Potter J. W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA42/01 THE QUEEN V PETER CHARLES HALLMOND Hearing: 21 June 2001 Coram: Appearances: Blanchard J Fisher J Potter J W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown Judgment: 21 June 2001 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY POTTER J [1] The appellant pleaded guilty to 14 charges relating to the abuse of 7 young boys over a period of 6-10 years. The offences included sexual violation, attempt to commit sexual violation, and indecent assault (9 charges). Two of the sexual violation charges were representative counts. [2] The sentences imposed were (with the starting point adopted by the sentencing Judge added in brackets as a convenience) - [a] Two pre-1993 sexual violation convictions 5 years (starting point 5 years).

2 [b] One post-1993 sexual violation conviction 6 years (starting point 8 years). [c] One assault with intent to commit sexual violation 3½ years (starting point 4 years). [d] One attempted sexual violation 4 years (starting point 4 years). [e] Four indecent assault charges 2 years (starting point 2 years). [f] Five indecent assault charges - 12 months (starting point 12 months). [3] The Judge determined that the post-1993 sexual violation sentence of 6 years should be cumulative with the attempted sexual violation sentence of 4 years, giving a total of 10 years imprisonment. Background [4] The victims in three cases were nephews of the appellant and in four cases young boys whose families the appellant befriended. One boy, F was befriended by the appellant and eventually placed in the appellant s care by the Family Court. However, he was killed in a motor vehicle accident in 1998 before he could be spoken to about the abuse admitted by the appellant. [5] The indecent assaults consisted of fondling the penis and testicles of the young victims. The sexual violation consisted of the appellant sucking their penises or attempting to have them suck his, using force on some occasions to try to achieve compliance. He also attempted to penetrate the anus of one of the victims. [6] In respect of all victims, especially those who were his nephews, the appellant s offending constituted a gross breach of trust. Victim impact statements in respect of each of the victims (except F) emphasise the breach of trust involved and the extremely adverse effects of the offending on the victims. 2

3 Sentencing [7] The Judge listed the aggravating features of the appellant s offending as including the gross breach of trust in all instances - including the violation of children in his own wider family, the number of years over which the offending continued (between 6 and 10), the representative nature of the charges indicative of the volume of offending and the number of incidents, the number of victims (7), their youth (in most cases under 12, though some offending was when the victims were between 12 and 16), the predatory nature of the appellant s behaviour and the way in which he organised opportunities to be alone with the victims, and that the offending was for his personal gratification and without thought for the consequences for his young victims. [8] He acknowledged mitigating factors to include co-operation with the Police, early guilty pleas, that the appellant had no history of offending since 1989, and that the nature of previous offending was not relevant to the convictions (but that was tempered by the long number of years over which this offending had continued). The Judge was unimpressed with the appellant s expressions of remorse given the damage he had inflicted on the lives of his 7 victims over such a lengthy period during which his claimed concern had not led him to take steps to prevent himself from further offending. [9] In calculating the appropriate sentences on each of the convictions, the Judge s calculations were not entirely consistent, but he generally allowed a discount of 25% for the guilty pleas from the starting point adopted in each case, and then increased the sentence marginally after balancing mitigating and aggravating factors. For example on the assault with intent to commit sexual violation charge he took a starting point of 4 years, allowed a discount of 1 year for the guilty plea, and reached a sentence of 3½ years after taking account of mitigating and aggravating factors. [10] Having determined the sentence on each of the convictions the Judge then stood back and addressed the matter of the appropriate overall sentence to reflect the totality of offending. 3

4 Submissions [11] For the appellant it was submitted that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. In particular the Judge had failed to take adequately into account the cooperation of the appellant with the Police which resulted in full admissions including the volunteering of information concerning the appellant s abuse of F where there would not have been an alternative source of information, his early guilty plea and his remorse, demonstrated by his co-operation with the Police, his letter of remorse, and his acceptance and indeed enthusiasm for rehabilitation. [12] Counsel also referred to what he described as the unorthodox method by which the sentencing Judge reached his ultimate determination. He further submitted that the decision in R v Tavinor (CA.313/94, 27 March 1995) should be distinguished, principally because in that case where a sentence of 10 years was imposed for sexual offences committed against five boys aged 4 to 11, there had been a charge of anal intercourse with a 6 year old boy. [13] The Crown in submitting that the sentence was appropriate, said that there was little to choose between the Tavinor decision and this case because while there was actual anal violation in Tavinor there was only one charge, here the attempts at anal violation occurred on numerous occasions when the victim concerned was between the ages of 12 and 15. Further, here there were 7 victims. Conclusions [14] We conclude that the sentence was not excessive in the circumstances. This was serious, long-term offending against 7 victims whose lives and futures have been seriously detrimentally affected by the abuse of the appellant inflicted on them. He acted for his selfish gratification without care or concern for his victims, the young boys who, with their families, trusted him. [15] The Judge gave appropriate recognition to the mitigating factors. The sentence must reflect the totality of the offending. The final step the Judge took in the sentencing process of stepping back and viewing the sentence in the light of the overall offending, was appropriate, as was the sentence imposed of 10 years. 4

5 Result [16] The appeal is dismissed. Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland 5