R v Meyer [2013] NZHC 3500 (19 December 2013)

Last Updated: 20 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-002307 [2013] NZHC 3500

REGINA

v

_{GORDON STANLEY MEYER}

Hearing:	19 December 2013
Counsel:	P A Currie for the Crown JHM Eaton QC for Mr Meyer
Judgment:	19 December 2013

_{SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J}

Introduction

[1] You are for sentence this morning on two charges, the first an indecent assault committed in April 2011, the second a charge that being a police officer you corruptly agreed to accept a bribe, being an offer of sexual gratification in return for not continuing to process an excess breath alcohol offence.

[2] These are serious crimes as reflected in the maximum penalty prescribed for them of seven years imprisonment.

The indecent assault

[3] The indecent assault, count eight in the indictment, occurred as I have said as a result of events in early 2011. You encountered the complainant in the course of your duties. She was only 18 at the time. The indecent assault occurred sometime in

_{the course of April that year. The complainant was at a bar in Hornby. You were on}

R v MEYER [2013] NZHC 3500 [19 December 2013]

duty in a patrol car. A friend of hers asked you to give the complainant a lift to another bar in Riccarton. You agreed to do so. En route you turned into Maxwell Street, stopped the vehicle and parked. She said “what are you doing?” You said “look”, looking towards your groin area and then grabbed her hand and placed it on your crutch. She pulled her hand away, you then made reference to her bra, reached over and felt her breast under her bra and added the comment “I want to suck your breasts”. The complainant pushed your hand away. You endeavoured to place it back on yourself again. She protested, saying “no, no”. And at that point this encounter ended, having lasted 30 seconds or so.

[4] Mr Meyer this was very plainly an indecent assault. The complainant did not consent in any way to your actions. She tolerated, or perhaps more accurately did not formally complain, because of your position. She had trusted you because you were a police officer. This shines through from a reading of her victim impact statement – have you read those statements from the two complainants? (nods) This complainant said this:

I would not have got in the car if Gordi was not a police man driving a police car. I felt safe getting in the car and never expected it to have this ending. If he had been some random older man I would have never got in the car and I know people would have questioned me if I did. Gordi was a police man, someone who everyone expects you can trust, someone who is supposed to protect people, but in fact he turned out to be a predator.

If he wasn’t a police man things would have never got as far as they did. He would have just been a dirty old man trying to prey on a young woman and no one would have hesitated coming to help me.

The fact that he was a police man changed so much about how I would have dealt with things. Firstly I would not have got in the car, secondly I would have stood up to him and told him where to go, and thirdly I would have no hesitation in calling the police. The fact he was a policeman changed this all. If I had screamed and made a scene no one would have come to my aid - I was with a police man and people would have never thought he was doing anything wrong.

[5] And then at the end of her statement she added this:

I can’t wait for this to be over so that I can just get on with my life. I know it will take a while for people to forget about it and for it to be out of the media but I know it will take a lot longer for me to get over what happened and for me to feel like I can trust people and the police again.

I hope Gordi has time to think about the power he had and how he used this to abuse his position. I hope some day he gets a taste of his own medicine and is put in a position where he has no power. Hopefully then he will understand how hard it is to be on the other side with no power.

The corrupt acceptance of a bribe

[6] I turn then to the further charge. The corrupt agreement to accept a bribe. On

14 September 2011 the complainant was socialising at the Bush Inn Bar. At about

1.25 am she left in the company of her boyfriend. She drove. You followed her vehicle in a patrol car into Hansons Lane, where you stopped her vehicle. You administered a breath screening test which was positive. She asked “what other options do I have”? And, I accept Mrs Currie’s submission that this was not an invitation to provide some form of sexual favour but a plea as to whether there was something short of a prosecution which was available. You made a remark “how about we sort it out on a personal level”.

[7] In due course this matured into a proposal that you go across the road to a more isolated spot and that an act of oral sex would be performed on you. You pointed out the presence in the car of her boyfriend, and indicated that the favour could be extended later when you were not on duty. You seized her keys, drove the complainant and her boyfriend to a nearby address and he was then told to get out of the vehicle. This left you in the driver’s seat, the complainant in the passenger seat. You asked her to expose her breasts. She did so, and then got out of the car.

[8] Later that night you phoned the complainant and indicated your intention to come to the address. You arrived at about 3.30 am in the morning. She sent a female friend to the door. You advised the friend how the keys could be reclaimed. At that point she told you that the complainant wanted no further contact with you. Nonetheless, later that same day, you rang the complainant twice about the vehicle, and the seizure of the keys. The following day you rang again and endeavoured to arrange to meet her. There were then a further 16 calls over the next three or four months. The complainant, to her credit simply terminated each of them as you spoke.

[9] However, on 20 October a month or so on you were on patrol in Halswell Road and stopped a vehicle at 3.30 am in the morning. The complainant was a passenger in that vehicle. She recognised you and vice-versa. Unsurprisingly she freaked out. She thought she was being stalked, that the fact of you stopping this vehicle was no mere coincide. Whatever the truth of the matter, it was this meeting which prompted her to go to the police and make a complaint. That was the beginning of the end.

[10] Again I am so struck by the content of the victim impact statement made by this complainant that I am going to read a passage from it as well.

The support I received from New Zealand police has been overwhelming and I am so grateful they stood up and protected me, they played a big part in helping me get back on track and by professionally investigating the incidents proved help is there for those who ask. Without them and my family I don’t believe I would be here sitting in this court room. I hope that good comes from the situation and I hope people know when they are weak and scared and vulnerable there is a way forward. Nobody deserves to live in fear and nobody has the right to degrade you or make you feel like your a lesser person.

Gordon you underestimated me, you abused your power and the trust instilled in you to satisfy your own selfish needs, you didn’t care about the emotional and psychological harm you inflicted on the very people you swore to protect, and even put yourself before your own family. It doesn’t make me happy to see you go through this, and it saddens me to think your poor family have to pick up the pieces.

It angers me to think you put that uniform on every day for 19 years without even acknowledging its value and what it represents to so many millions of people. I don’t wish anything bad on you I just hope one day you understand the gravity of what you did and learn to think of other before making such selfish decisions.

[11] Mr Meyer I find those comments apt, perceptive and fair minded, especially the concern expressed by the complainant for the plight of your own immediate family. She, I note, is a young woman in her early twenties, and the mother of a young child.

A sentence indication

[12] As counsel have noted I gave a sentence indication a day or two prior to the scheduled commencement date of your trial in this Court. The Crown accepted that,

in light of the sentence imposed in the case of Connolly,¹ the end term of imprisonment would likely fall within the range where home detention became a possible sentence. This coupled with the lesser gravity of your offending resulted in an acceptance that home detention was in all probability an available sentence.

[13] I agreed with that assessment, and provided a sentence indication that home detention would be available and an appropriate sentence, subject however to the availability of a suitable address and the contents of any pre-sentence report and of any other reports concerning your background and prognosis for the future.

The sentence evaluation

[14] Fortunately, for you the reports are sufficiently positive, that home detention will be imposed. But I need to explain why I have come to that conclusion in a little detail.

[15] I regard the corruption charge as the lead offence. It entailed a number of aggravating features. The first is the breach of trust. Police officers swear an oath to uphold the rule of law. To that end they are clothed with powers and corresponding responsibilities. You abused those powers. You utilised them to your own selfish ends. In particular, to obtain sexual gratification. I regard the breach of trust as gross.

[16] I agree that both of these complainants were vulnerable. This is self-evident from a reading of their victim impact statements. In consequence, they suffered at your hands, not just on the actual nights in question, but over a period, in one case of three or four weeks. In short, you were persistent in pursuing them in your quest for sexual gratification.

[17] Mr Meyer in a sense, I think your former colleagues are also victims of your behaviour. On reading the victim impact statements I was struck by the strength of feeling on the part of both complainants that a police officer in the course of his

_{duties took advantage of them. This I think reflects the general expectation of}

¹ R v Connolly HC Christchurch CRI-2008-009-14401, 31 July 2009.

New Zealanders, that we have a police force free from corruption. At one point in his written submission Mr Eaton, QC observed that there seemed to be perception that where a police investigation was into one of its own, it was conducted to use his phrase “once over lightly”. But I agree with him that that is certainly not the case.

[18] The investigation into your conduct was painstaking and thorough. In fact, I want to pause to commend Detective Senior Sergeant Sweeney and those under him in this regard.

[19] As has been noted the generally good reputation of the New Zealand Police Force is reflected in the fact that there are few comparable cases to which I can have regard. I consider there is only one which is closely in point, the case already mentioned of Connolly, decided in this Court a few years ago. He was found guilty of inducing consent to sexual connection by a threat. He was the client of a prostitute. One night he stopped her in the course of his police duties and found that her vehicle had no warrant, was not registered and she had no licence. He commented that he could issue tickets worth about $1,000. Instead, however, he drove her to an isolated spot, had sexual intercourse with her and made no payment for her services.

[20] The parallels with this case are obvious enough. But there is an obvious difference as well. The sexual favour in relation to Connolly’s case was of considerably greater gravity than what occurred in relation to your two offences. French J, sitting in this Court, fixed a starting point of five years imprisonment before personal mitigating factors were considered. I note that the approach she took to sentencing was endorsed subsequently by the Court of Appeal.

[21] What then is the appropriate starting point here? As Mr Eaton rightly acknowledged, imprisonment is the starting point where an offence involves police corruption. As I have noted, what you obtained as opposed to what you were offered was fairly mild. It was a momentary exposure of breasts by one complainant before you left the car. Subsequently she relatively easily outwitted you and avoided your attentions.

[22] My assessment of the gravity of the indecent assault is essentially similar. You parked the vehicle, placed the hand on your trousers over your penis, touched her breasts under her clothing, then endeavoured to place her hand on yourself again until she said “no, no”. Both complainants were then subjected to phone calls, to your leering conduct, but were well able to avoid any repeat despite your intentions.

[23] Mr Meyer the word “sleazy” was adopted by the media at the time you entered your guilty pleas and in the course of subsequent publicity. That about sums it up. An abuse of trust, a high level of corruption, a sexual element, the level of gratification you exacted, however, was at a low level. Sleazy, if not rather pathetic.

[24] In my view, the appropriate starting point in considering your case for both of these offences viewed together is three years imprisonment.

[25] What then are the personal mitigating factors to be taken into account? Mr Eaton urged that you should receive a reasonable discount for your pleas of guilty. They were late, on the very eve of trial. But this reflected a rationalisation in relation to the charges. Despite their lateness, the guilty pleas ensured that the complainants did not face the further indignity of giving evidence.

[26] Secondly, there is the fact of your previous good character. You are 45 years of age, you have no previous convictions. Mr Eaton advanced as well your 19 years of service as a police officer which he submitted, until these matters you unearthed, had been an exemplary career. Indeed, there seems to be some basis for that. In particular, a senior sergeant who was involved in all of your performance appraisals described you as “a highly rated officer, consistently better and a role model in many areas”.

[27] Another and principal matter advanced by your counsel, is the fall from grace that you have suffered. Indeed I agree with Mr Eaton, you have suffered public vilification and humiliation. By the time your pleas had been entered, name suppression lifted and you had resigned from the police force, you had lost your career, lost your livelihood and lost your reputation. I regard this as highly relevant

to the important purposes of sentencing: holding the offender accountable, denouncing his conduct and deterring any repeat of such acts.

[28] I accept that each of the matters I have just mentioned require recognition as mitigating factors. Mr Eaton also submitted that you had demonstrated remorse and made an offer of amends. As to the former, I am doubtful. The pre-sentence report is unfavourable on this score. The report writer observed that she was left with the impression that you had a sense of entitlement about what you had done. She also commented that you lacked insight into the criminality of your behaviour and into the boundaries to which police officers are, or should be, subject.

[29] Nonetheless you are assessed as being at low risk of reoffending, no doubt partly on account of your removal from the police force. But it is considered that you are in need of psychological help to achieve proper insight into the causes of your behaviour.

[30] Connolly, I note had a broadly similar range of mitigating factors available to him, although of course his case went to trial before a jury, so he did not get credit for a guilty plea. Nevertheless, the starting point of five years was reduced back to two years and that became the end sentence in his case.

[31] I am satisfied that the mitigating factors to which I have referred, viewed in the round, warrant a reduction of the sentence of imprisonment which would be appropriate to 18 months in your case.

[32] Mr Meyer, you have been assessed as suitable for home detention and as having an address which is also suitable for you to serve such a sentence. I am also satisfied that home detention is the appropriate sentence given the circumstances of your offending.

[33] I note that Mr Eaton relied upon s 8(g) of the Sentencing Act, that you are entitled to receive the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate given the available sentencing hierarchy. More particularly, he also relied upon s 8(h), whether there was a particular circumstance applicable to you as the offender that would mean a

prison sentence would be disproportionately severe in your case. Plainly enough, I think you are in that category. You would probably have to serve any sentence of imprisonment in isolation given your past as a police officer. So this sentencing principle has also played a part in my thinking.

The end sentence

[34] Could you stand up please.

[35] Gordon Meyer you are sentenced to nine month home detention on each of the charges. Throughout that sentence you will be subject to the standard conditions prescribed in s 80C of the Sentencing Act. You will also be subject to some special conditions which are set out in the home detention appendix and which I will not read out in full. These provide that there is to be unhindered access to your property, so that the authorities can visit as required and this is directed to the control of dogs. You are not to associate with any of your victims. You are not to possess fire arms during the term of the sentence. Importantly, you are to undergo assessment and undertake psychological counselling and treatment as required by your probation officer and treatment provider. I agree that it is appropriate that I not mention the address in the North Island where you will serve this sentence of home detention, and I make an order suppressing the address.

[36] Finally, I direct that you are to pay $6,000 by way of emotional harm payments to each of the complainants in equal shares. Your sentence of home detention Mr Meyer will commence tomorrow to enable time for you to return to your home address.

[37] It has been drawn to my attention that the charge of indecent assault is defined as an offence of violence. This means that you are now subject to the three strikes legislation, I am required to administer a first strike warning. What this means Mr Meyer is that should you be convicted of a further offence of violence which includes, as you will appreciate, sexual offences similar to indecent assault and the like, any sentence of imprisonment that is imposed you would serve without parole. Likewise, if convicted of even more serious crimes there would be significant parole consequences. I do not propose to outline those. You will be

provided with a written notice which endorses this warning and also lists the offences that incur a second or third strike.

[38] You may stand down.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly and Co., Christchurch

JHM Eaton QC, Barrister, Christchurch