R v Wright [2019] NZDC 2122 (8 February 2019)

Last Updated: 21 August 2019

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

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 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360350.html

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WHANGAREI I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA

CRI-2017-029-000826

[2019] NZDC 2122

THE QUEEN

v

SHANNON LEON WRIGHT

Hearing:	8 February 2019
Appearances:	S Barnaart for the Crown T Spencer for the Defendant
Judgment:	8 February 2019

NOTES OF JUDGE N J SAINSBURY ON SENTENCING

[1] Shannon Wright, you are for sentence on charges of rape and abduction for sex and that is following guilty verdicts at the jury trial. The two charges arise out of the same incident and that happened back [in 2017].

[2] The victim in this matter had been down in the street in [location deleted] in the evening. The two of you knew each other and one of the very sad aspects of this case, and I think something that goes to the heart of your culpability, is that you were someone, up to that point she felt safe to talk to, to interact with and someone she felt she could be safe to be with, that you were not someone that would take advantage of

R v SHANNON LEON WRIGHT [2019] NZDC 2122 [8 February 2019]

her or hurt her. In that sense, she was incredibly trusting and had a faith that you had a better nature to you.

[3] The two of you got talking, she had a cigarette and you made a suggestion that perhaps you go back to a friend’s place. She was willing to do that. She was willing to do that because, again, she saw you as someone she could spend time with, talk to and who she will be safe with. There was no indication that she was interested in some form of sexual contact with you at that time. It would seem however you may have formed the view that could be a possibility. There was nothing that she did that gave rise to that.

[4] Having got to the address, it became clear that it seemed to be empty and understandably the victim became concerned because she was happy to be with you and talk with you but she was not interested in any form of sexual contact with you. She said she wanted to go back home, she changed her mind about going to the address. At that point if it was not already clear, it should have been clear to you that nothing further should or would happen.

[5] Whether you had any expectation, wrongly, that perhaps she might be interested in having sex with you, it was clear that was not going to be the case. However, at that point rather than accept what you were told, you then effectively manhandled her, effectively picked her up and took her into the address.

[6] Even at that point, she had the presence of mind to try to appeal to your better nature saying to you, “You are better than this, don’t do this.” She made it clear this was something she did not want to have anything to do with and that you should not, but you just went ahead anyway. Having raped the victim, you then walked back the way you had come with her.

[7] There is the issue which there was some controversy about it but the comment made that “snitches get stitches.” You, I note, that you said that was not something you said, in any event you did not think she would say anything to the police.

[8] I think the real point about all of this, that really what goes to the heart of why this is so serious are two things. First, it seems to me that, at work here, is a twisted sense of entitlement and a twisted sense of relations with women.

[9] It concerned me when I read in the pre-sentence report you made reference that the victim had been to the pad and about a previous sexual encounter you had had, as if that somehow means that there is an entitlement to simply have sex with her when you choose to.

[10] It follows from something that is the worst aspect of gang culture and that is an attitude of male entitlement that women are simply there to be used for sex as a man chooses. That is utterly wrong.

[11] I understand you have children. I do not know whether they are boys or girls. If you have a daughter who is now a little child, think carefully, “What do you want her to be? Something to be used by a male, to put it crudely, just there to be fucked.” Or do you want her to be respected, to be treated as a full human being. Well you need to think about your attitudes.

[12] Whether you choose to stay within a gang or not, the attitude towards women that brings you here has got to change. If that apology to the victim of this offending truly means something, it means there has got to be a genuine change in that attitude.

[13] The second matter that goes directly to the culpability is the impact this has on the victim. We have heard from the victim of this offending who very bravely has fronted up to Court to talk knowing you are here.

[14] As I said to her earlier, I was deeply impressed with the way she gave evidence. She was incredibly dignified, very brave, very fair in the way she went through that ordeal. I could not really get passed the thought that along with the trauma of the very actions that happened to her, one of the worst aspects was that it was you that did this, someone she thought she could talk to, who had some respect for her and who liked her. She genuinely thought you were a better person than that and I suspect that is a serious aspect in terms of the harm done to her, to have that faith shattered.

[15] I certainly hope that she realises that whether she was mistaken about that, it does not reflect on her. In her fact her faith that you were a better person I think speaks volumes about what a good person she is and I hope she can keep hold of that.

[16] I note in the letters that you have sent me and in the pre-sentence report, there is an acknowledgement that what you did was wrong. I am pleased to see that. How deep that change goes will only become apparent over time and I sincerely hope that it is genuine and you act on it.

[17] I note in the pre-sentence report you indicated you identify strongly with your Māori culture and beliefs. It seems that was important part of your upbringing. Well I hope that is something that you continue to engage with because at its heart, Māori culture is based on mutual respect, in relationships. Those things were shattered by your actions towards this victim and you need to put that right.

[18] In terms of the sentencing I am guided by a Court of Appeal decision called R v A M . That sets out the perimeters of the sort of sentence I must impose and the reality is, the seriousness of this offending is squarely reflected in the types of sentences that must be imposed in the circumstances.1 They are harsh sentences because the harm that is done by these actions is just so powerful.

[19] In this case, as I note in terms of what particularly goes to culpability is the harm to the victim of the offending. That will always be the case with offending of this type but nevertheless it is an important feature in this case.

[20] Further, as I have noted, is the that sense of entitlement that seems to underlie this behaviour.

[21] In A M the Court gives examples of types of cases that help to form a view on where the sentence should lie. I do not intend to go through the facts of those. It is a very difficult process for offending such as this to try to compare one case to another. It can give the impression that somehow one person’s suffering is less than in others when any type of offending like this, it is going to be serious.

1 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750

[22] What I will note is this. The Court of Appeal at paragraph 93 sets out examples of offending, they include cases such as R v Murphy, R v Pehi and R v Hill and then later in the paragraph, other cases that they see as containing worse features, R v Wirangi, R v Stasky and R v H.2

[23] Having considered those cases I see your offending fitting somewhere between them. The Court of Appeal says the range for that level of offending requires a starting point of imprisonment of six to eight years and I said that reflects just how seriously this offending is regarded.

[24] In terms of setting that starting point, I am going to look at the case in terms of the whole incident. I know there are two charges but I agree with what the Crown says that the rape charge is the worst, the abduction adds to the seriousness of it. So on that basis I consider a starting point of seven years is appropriate.

[25] It is possible to add to that sentence if there is previous offending, particularly previous offending of a similar type. The reason for that is that it is hoped that earlier sentences mean that you change your behaviour and learn from what has happened in the past. Failure to do that and persistence with offending means that a Court is entitled to make a sentence harsher. In this instance, you do not have any history of sexual offending, but quite rightly the Crown points to and Ms Spencer rightly acknowledges as being relevant, the fact of offending of violence particularly against women.

[26] Charges of male assaults female being a family violence charge, breach of a protection order another family violence charge, assault with intent to injure family violence back in 2016, 2013 assault with intent to injure, again family violence, assault with a blunt instrument, again family violence, male assaults female of which there are two, again family violence charges. There are separate incidents again, going back to 2013 male assaults female, threatening to kill and then in 2011 male assaults female, 2008 male assaults female, again family violence charges.

2 R v Murphy; R v Pehi; R v Hill; R v Wirangi; R v Stasky and R v H CA436/02, 23 June 2003

[27] The concern of those charges is that they illustrate what concerns me about your behaviour. That is a very sick and wrong attitude towards women. This offending can be seen as a continuation of that. On that basis, there is justification to uplift this starting point and I do that by six months.

[28] I then have to consider any mitigating features.

[29] Having had the case go to trial, there is no discount for a guilty plea.

[30] I note that you now acknowledge that your behaviour was wrong and you no longer try to justify it. It would have been better had that been done without the need for a trial. To have spared the victim being put through that.

[31] I note the material from the prison that you are endeavouring to take up such opportunities that you have available to you. I also note the apology that you drafted. As I say, it would have been far better and more sincere had we not been in this position of having to have had to go through a trial before that apology came forward. I hope that the indications you have given acknowledging what you have done and wishing to avoid any repeat of that in the future are genuine.

[32] I would like to think that the victim’s assessment now seriously shattered may still turn out to be right, “You are actually better than this,” and you can be better than this. I will provide some discount to reflect that but again it can only be modest.

[33] In terms of the final sentence, that is, seven years three months, the Crown ask for what is called a minimum term of imprisonment, meaning the time in which you can apply for parole is extended.

[34] I do not see that there is a need to extend that time, and the reason is this. You can only be released when the Parole Board assesses that you are not a risk to the community. You will not be released until they make that assessment and are confident about it. It does not follow that you would be released after a third of your sentence when you are eligible to apply and I strong suspect you will not be.

[35] I would prefer to leave the decision for your release to the Parole Board who in a position to make an assessment of how you will be, some years ahead from now and whether there has been genuine change. If there has not been, they are not going to release you and you would simply stay in prison possibly serving the full sentence.

[36] If you genuinely change, if that good that is within you does come back to the surface then when the community is safe, you can be released. I will leave that to the wisdom of the Parole Board and do not intend to preempt it.

[37] That means the final sentence is one of seven years three months. That sentence can apply to both charges, together. They are concurrent.

N J Sainsbury District Court Judge