Police v Powell [2017] NZDC 22077 (28 September 2017)

Last Updated: 8 May 2018

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS].

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON

CRI-2017-087-000516

[2017] NZDC 22077

NEW ZEALAND POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Prosecutor v

[GAVIN POWELL] Defendant

Hearing:	28 September 2017
Appearances:	Senior Constable M MacDonald for the Prosecutor New Zealand Police G Marcroft for the Prosecutor Department of Corrections
Judgment:	28 September 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE G S COLLIN ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr [Powell] you appear today on a number of charges relating to the breaching of a protection order and offences under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which I do not need to explain to you. You are well familiar with that Act, having been sentenced before for posting offensive material against the same victim.

[2] The offending is nasty. It was a deliberate attempt by you to belittle, embarrass, and cause distress to your former partner. You succeeded, probably beyond your own expectations, which is something I hope you are not proud of.

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v [GAVIN POWELL] [2017] NZDC 22077 [28 September 2017]

[3] Her victim impact statement makes sobering reading. She says that she feels humiliated, violated, terrified and sick. Your offending has dramatically impacted her health and wellbeing. You have embarrassed her to other people. Her employment has been lost as a consequence of what you did. She seeks compensation for her loss of job and loss of health because of the detrimental effects of what you have done have had on her.

[4] She is not the only victim. Her [relation – name deleted] likewise has been affected to the point that she has had to seek medication and professional help, which is in turn affecting her career. Quite obviously, it has affected other people as well. The content of some of the material that you posted is offensive, disgraceful, and designed to provide maximum injury and impact. You went into the website of her employer and posted information which compromised her employment.

[5] You have previous history. There are simply no mitigating factors in relation to this offending other than the fact that you have pleaded guilty.

[6] I have read the submissions of the police and in large part I agree with their assessment. They propose a starting point of six to 10 months’ imprisonment. I assess it at the highest end of that at 10 months. I uplift that sentence by three months to take into account the aggravating features and in particular your past convictions for similar offending against the same victim. I then give you a discount of 25 percent, and I may not have done my maths right, but it is going to be rounded out to a sentence of nine months and two weeks’ imprisonment.

[7] That sentence will be imposed upon you concurrently on each of the charges under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

[8] In relation to the charge of breaching release conditions, on that matter you are sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, which is likewise to be served concurrently.

[9] I give you a formal warning that if you appear again on similar offending, sentences of imprisonment approaching the maximum amount that can be imposed by statute, particularly in relation to harmful digital communications, are likely to be

imposed upon you, which is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. In addition to that you are likely to face, if you breach the protection order, additional and cumulative sentences of imprisonment. I make that comment to impose upon you the fact that you cannot continue to act in this way toward this victim, who no longer wants anything to do with you.

[10] Release conditions, six months from expiry date of sentence.

G S Collin

District Court Judge