R v Page [2014] NZHC 2092 (29 August 2014)

Last Updated: 23 September 2014

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2012-076-000587 [2014] NZHC 2092

THE QUEEN

v

_{PHILLIP BRENDON PAGE}

Hearing:	29 August 2014
Appearances:	A R McRae for Crown L L Heah for Prisoner
Judgment:	29 August 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J [REDACTED VERSION TO COMPLY WITH S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT]

[1] Phillip Page, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty, on

3 September last year, to 10 charges of doing an indecent act on a child under

12 years and one of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend and, on

21 February 2014, to five charges of rape, six charges of unlawful sexual connection, two charges of doing an indecent act on a young person under 16, one charge of an indecent act on a child under 12 years and one of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend.

[2] I record that you subsequently attempted to vacate the guilty pleas entered on

21 February 2014, except the charge relating to doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years, but that application was rejected by Panckhurst J in May this year.

R v PAGE [2014] NZHC 2092 [29 August 2014]

So you are therefore before this Court for sentencing on 26 charges, having been discharged on one further charge earlier under s 347 of the Crimes Act. I also record that there is an application to discharge you on three remaining counts, that is, counts

20, 21 and 22 which are charges of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, and that is hereby granted.

[3] Your offending relates to multiple victims and, for the purposes of sentencing, it is only necessary to provide a bare summary of those offences. It is easiest to categorise those offences by reference to each victim. Your victims were:

(a) [ ... ] the [ ... ] of a [ ... ]. She was aged about five to six years old [at the time of the offending].

(b) [ ... ] the [ ... ] of [ ... ]; and [ ... ] at the time of the offending. He was aged six to seven years old [at the time of the offending].

(c) [ ... ], [ ... ]. He was aged three to four years old [at the time of the offending].

(d) [ ... ] your [ ... ]. She was aged between six and 14 years in the period

[during which the offending occurred].

(e) [ ... ] and [ ... ] who [ ... ] who, in 2011, [ ... ] from you and [ ... ] [ ... ].

The girls were aged 10 and seven respectively at the time of the offending against them.

[ ... ]

[4] Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011 you raped [ ... ] on two separate occasions, and took photos of the offending on each occasion (offences 1 and 2). In the same period you had unlawful sexual connection with [ ... ] by digital penetration on three occasions (offences 3, 4 and 6). Each occasion of digital penetration was filmed by you. You also indecently assaulted [ ... ] throughout this period by touching her inappropriately, making her do inappropriate things, and filming or photographing the indecency (offences 7 and 8).

[ ... ]

[5] Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011 you instructed [ ... ] to engage in sexual activities with [ ... ]. [ ... ] obliged and engaged in an act with which you assisted (offence 5) and you photographed that offending.

[ ... ]

[6] Between 2005 and 2012 you raped [ ... ] on multiple occasions, had unlawful sexual connection with her, performed indecent acts on her twice while she was less than 12 years old and twice when she was less than 16 years old (offences 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14 and 15). The indecent acts involved you inappropriately touching her and taking inappropriate pictures and videos of her.

[ ... ]

[7] Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011 you took videos and photographs of [ ... ] and touched him inappropriately. These acts amounted to two counts of performing an indecent act on a child, and one of performing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend (offences 17, 18 and 19).

[ ... ]

[8] In about December 2011 you inappropriately photographed [ ... ] and had unlawful sexual connection with her by digital penetration. In addition, you exposed yourself to her inappropriately. And those actions gave rise to charges of performing an indecent act on a child, unlawful sexual connection and performing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend (offences 23, 24 and 25).

[ ... ]

[9] In the same time period, you inappropriately touched and photographed [ ... ]. These actions gave rise to the three charges of performing an indecent act on a child (offences 26, 27 and 28). You also had unlawful sexual connection with her by digital penetration and raped her (offences 29 and 30).

Victim Impact Statements

[10] Now the victim impact statements. I have read these. They have not been heard by the Court.

[ ... ]

[11] The first victim is [ ... ]. She expresses disgust and revulsion that anyone could do what you did to a child. She says she trusted you and had no reason not to, but in hindsight she regrets that she gave permission for [ ... ] to ever be around you in her care.

[12] She says that [ ... ] does not speak of what happened and there are no overt indications of anything wrong. However, she is very quiet, she is suspicious of who her [ ... ] speaks to and is ‘grossed out’ by sexual education. Her [ ... ] no longer trusts anyone with [ ... ], other than her partner’s parents and a baby sitter who has many of her own children.

[13] The entire ordeal has had a significant impact on [ ... ]. Her partner was worried about being around [ ... ] on his own after everything had occurred and her depression was exacerbated as a result. In addition, she does not feel comfortable discussing it with many people for fear of being blamed. She is worried about ever seeing you and does not know if she can face you.

[ ... ]

[14] Then we have the [ ... ] of [ ... ] and [ ... ].

[15] She says she did not consider you capable of the acts you have committed. She said she knew you had difficulties, but nothing of this magnitude.

[16] In terms of the effect this has had on [ ... ] and [ ... ] she says that:

[ ... ] does not seem to accept what has happened. He is now just a shell, and gets angry and violent. He was going to counselling, but it

was a struggle getting him there. He engages in strange toilet behaviour. He has changed significantly since you were arrested.

[ ... ] has never said anything about the offending apart from once “[ ... ] never did that to me”. He was upset when you were arrested and blames his [ ... ]. He engages in strange toilet behaviour and also “shows his bum to [ ... ]”, but “really flips out if anyone touches him.” His [ ... ] said he has gone from being mostly happy to hating [ ... ]. His [ ... ] says his behaviour has significantly deteriorated.

[17] The offending has taken a significant toll on [ ... ] and [ ... ] [ ... ] mentally, emotionally and financially. She has little familial support and she struggles to deal with her children. She says you have destroyed their lives.

[ ... ]

[18] [ ... ], she states that despite all that has happened she still loves you [ ... ]. She finds it hard to face all that has happened. She prefers to focus on the good times [ ... ]. She realises what you did was wrong, but claims it has not affected her as much as other people. However, it is clear from her [ ... ] statement that [ ... ] behaviour, too, has been significantly adversely affected.

[ ... ]

[19] Then we have [ ... ] [ ... ]. Once she found out about you abusing [ ... ] she became angry and was shocked. It really hit her when she heard parts of what [ ... ] stated had been done to her.

[20] She has not slept well since it all came out. She was even more shocked when she found out that there were other victims. She has a lot of guilt because she feels that she could have done something to prevent the offending, even though she knows the offending is not her fault.

[21] [ ... ] has been doing well at school. However, the [ ... ] relationship with [ ... ] has been quite distant since they found out about what has happened. Her [ ... ] worries and feels guilty all the time.

[ ... ]

[22] Then we have the [ ... ] of [ ... ] and [ ... ]. She says the ordeal has affected her “badly”. She feels as if she has failed [these victims]. She sees such a difference in her [ ... ] and has not been able to talk to them about what has happened because she has no idea where to start. Her [ ... ] also finds it very difficult.

[23] She says the changes in [ ... ] have been “extremely significant and very difficult”. Her schooling and education has suffered significantly, and she “is a different girl”, she turns into a “baby” around adults when she gets excited, she has begun to wet her bed, her personal hygiene is “absolutely terrible” and has never talked about what has happened.

[24] She also said the changes in [ ... ] have been “frightening” and “probably the hardest to deal with”. She has become paranoid about protecting herself and if she goes to the park she will take a knife for protection. She “has become very defiant and very demanding” and will resort to violence. She has pulled a knife on her mother and when she devolves into an ‘episode’, no one can control her. Both the girls have become “sexual”. They have gotten [ ... ] to take sexual photos of themselves, have taken sexual photos of each other, and one has imitated sex with another boy.

[25] So that is the impact on your victims. I now turn to you.

Offender’s personal circumstances

[26] You are 36 years old, or were when the reports were prepared. Some key events in your childhood was your father’s diagnosis with cancer when you were around seven years old and his subsequent erratic behaviour which led to your parent’s separation. Your mother subsequently remarried.

[27] You had difficulties at school, due at least in part to speech and learning difficulties. You were eventually expelled from school for fighting when you were

15 and in the third form and, at the same time, you were kicked out of home.

[28] Your life from then on was unsettled, with regular changes in your living arrangements and only short-term employment.

[29] Of real concern is the fact that you have 56 prior convictions, although none relate directly to sexual offending. Your convictions began at the age of 17 when you were convicted of ill treating an animal and then you appeared before the Courts each and every subsequent year until 2001, amassing convictions for dishonesty, driving offences, violence and wilful damage. While your offending frequency appears to have slowed down from then onwards, you were, in 2003 again charged with cruelty to animals and unlawful discharge of a firearm, and you were imprisoned in 2009 on four charges of a dangerous act of intent to injure with a firearm. Shortly after your release you were charged with harbouring or concealing a child from Child Youth and Family Service custody.

Pre-sentence Report

[30] The pre-sentence report which I have, was prepared in March 2014, and it covers that background I have just outlined above. At that stage it appears you still claim that you only pleaded guilty because of pressure that you felt from your lawyer and from the judiciary and with a view of getting a lighter sentence. It was unsurprising that the probation officer considered that you had a lack of insight into your offending and a low level of motivation to change. The summary in that report reads as follows:

Phillip Page is a high risk paedophile who is unrepentant of his actions and who has demonstrated no victim empathy at interview. His extensive raft of active convictions and charges, combined with his previous conviction history reveal a man who is an extreme risk to society and of harming others. His failure to engage in a meaningful manner in the interview for this report reinforces my assessment that the primary focus of sentencing will need to be punitive sanction and the removal of Phillip Page from society with the view of increasing public safety.

The recommendation of this report is for a long term of imprisonment. It is understood that the Court may also consider the potential for Preventative [sic] Detention.

[31] However, there have also been two more recent reports prepared under s 88 of the Sentencing Act, which I will come to in due course, and they update the position.

Purpose and principles of sentencing

[32] So turning to sentencing, I have to bear in mind a number of considerations. These are:

(a) holding you accountable for the harm you have done to your victims and the community;

(b) promoting in you a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm;

(c) providing for your victims’ interests;

(d) denouncing the conduct in which were you involved;

(e) deterring others from committing the same or similar offence; (f) protecting the community;

(g) but also assisting with your rehabilitation and integration.

[33] I also have to take into the account the principles of sentencing. These include:

(a) taking into account the gravity of your offending and the degree of your culpability;

(b) taking into account the seriousness of the type of offence as indicated by the maximum penalty prescribed for them;

(c) imposing a penalty near the maximum if the offending is near to the most serious offending;

(d) taking into account the general desirability of consistence in sentencing levels by looking at comparable cases;

(e) taking into account any information provided to me about the effect of the offending on your victims; and

(f) imposing the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances.

Submissions

Crown submissions

[34] The Crown primarily contends that preventive detention should be imposed, with a lengthy minimum period of imprisonment.

[35] The Crown says there are no mitigating features of the offending, and says the following aggravating features are present in the offending:

(a) First is the extent of the harm (s 9(1)(d)): you have six victims. The offending against one victim spanned seven years. The offending against all victims was repeated. Three victims were raped. Much of the offending was either videoed or photographed. The effect on those victims is significant.

(b) In the breach of trust (s 9(1)(f)): the offending was against [ ... ].

(c) The victim vulnerability (s 9(1)(g)): the victims were predominantly very young at the time of offending.

(d) And pre-meditation (s 9(1)(i)): the offending was videoed or photographed.

[36] The Crown’s primary submission is that you should be sentenced to

preventive detention for reasons I will come to in due course.

[37] The Crown also says if I am not minded to impose preventive detention, then in any event, a lengthy determinate period of imprisonment, with a lengthy minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. And referring to a case called R v AM,¹ says the following factors are present:

(i) the planning and premeditation; (ii) the vulnerable victims;

(iii) the harm to the victims;

(iv) the scale of the offending; and

(v) the breach of trust.

The Crown says this places the offending squarely within Band 4 identified in that

R v AM case, with an appropriate starting point of somewhere between 16 and

20 years. The decision in R v Turner² was referred to by analogy where a combined starting point of 18.5 years was taken. The Crown contends this is a more serious case.

[38] Then, in terms of the features applying to you personally, the Crown says that your extensive criminal history is an aggravating feature, as is the fact that significant tracts of the offending were committed while you were either on bail or still subject to sentence. The only mitigating factor is your guilty plea, although you entered them late in relation to the most serious offending and then tried to vacate them.

Defence submissions

[39] Now your own lawyer accepts that you are in Band 4 of R v AM case, although she contends that the Court could adopt a lower starting point of 17 years rather than 18 years. It is accepted that a minimum period of imprisonment may be imposed, and that one that is around half the end sentence was indicated by Panckhurst J. She submits that, despite your attempts to vacate your guilty pleas, you are still entitled to a discount of 15 per cent.

[40] Your lawyer says that the Court should not impose a sentence of preventive detention and details the factors in support of this position. So, my decision.

Decision on Sentence

[41] Counsel are agreed that the tariff, or guideline case is R v AM, and they are agreed that this offending is in Band 4, and I am in no doubt that this is a Band 4 case.

[42] I have had regard to a range of relevant cases, including those that counsel have referred me to, to decide where to set the starting point in Band 4. In the case of Gage v R,³ Mr Gage was convicted of 49 counts of offending against five female partners over a 15 year period. The offending involved repeated acts of rape, sexual violation involving objects, penetration of the anus, indecent assault, injuring with intent, injuring with assault and in some instances kidnapping and threats. In the

High Court the starting point there was 17 years, uplifted by two years to take into account other violent offending. An end sentence of 19 years was imposed with a minimum period of imprisonment of 9.5 years.

[43] That case did not, involve some of the aggravating features of this case, including the greater vulnerability of these victims, the breach of trust involved, and the addition of the degradation of photographing and filming some of the incidents.

[44] Another case is Roberson v R,⁴ where the defendant was convicted of indecent acts, on three separate occasions in relation to one complainant, an act of anal sex in relation to a second child complainant, and two representative counts of rape in respect of two young girls. In that case all the victims were aged less than six at the time. A starting point of 16 years was upheld on appeal, and a final sentence of 18 years.

[45] Again, however, while this offending involved a breach of trust against [ ... ] very young children, it does not have the aggravating feature of an offence by [ ... ] against [ ... ] or [ ... ], nor of photographing or filming the activities.

[46] Finally, I have considered the decision in Ellmers v R,⁵ where a defendant was charged with a number of counts against three young victims, including making intimate visual recordings and various charges of possessing and supplying objectionable images. He was also charged with two charges of stupefying or disabling his victims. In that case a starting point of 19 years for the lead offending, uplifted by five years for the other offending and one year for previous convictions, led to a provisional starting point of 25 years. He was ultimately sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years, but that was reduced on appeal to 15. That case had a number of parallels with this case, although this case does not have the aggravating features of stupefying a child victim or supplying images to a third party.

[47] I also, of course, had regard to the sentencing indication provided last year by

Panckhurst J, although that has now lapsed, it is not binding on me.

[48] So in setting this starting point I have taken the five counts of rape against the three victims as the lead offences and then I go on to consider the relevant culpability assessment factors.

Premeditation

[49] In terms of premeditation. I am satisfied your offending was planned and premeditated. The two occasions on which [ ... ] was raped occurred when she was sleeping which was either photographed or videoed. To [ ... ] meant you had planned the violation that would follow.

[50] Similarly, I considered that when you raped [ ... ], you did so when you took her [ ... ]. I consider this is an example of planning to get her alone in order to undertake offending.

Vulnerability of the victim

[51] Turning to vulnerability of the victims. Your vicitm, [ ... ], was somewhere between five and six and seven and eight at the times you raped her, [ ... ] was between six and 14, and [ ... ] was seven. All of them were vulnerable because of their age.

Harm to the victims

[52] In terms of harm, it is clear that you have harmed your victims and that harm is irretrievable. Having read the victim impact statements it is clear that the lives of these three children have changed through your acts. The behaviour of all three children has changed for the worst. In addition to the girls who were raped, the parents, the guardians, the immediate family are also victims. What you have done has fundamentally altered the course of their lives as well.

Scale of offending

[53] In terms of the scale of the offending. There are multiple instances of rape against multiple victims, one of whom was [ ... ], and they span some seven years. Moreover, you photographed these acts. Photographing or videoing offending in this way was expressly said in R v AM to be a degradation on top of that ordinarily associated with rape and increasing the scale of the offending.⁶

Breach of trust

[54] And in terms of a breach of trust. Well, offending against children inherently involves a significant breach of trust. Children are of course, some of the most vulnerable members of society. They rely on adults to keep them safe. In terms of age, [ ... ] and [ ... ] were the most vulnerable. [ ... ]. In raping [ ... ] on multiple occasions you breached your [ ... ] trust in the worst kind of way and that factor is present in a very high degree.

[55] In summary, there are five of the culpability assessment factors in R v AM aggravating your offending to a significant degree. There are no obvious mitigating factors and on this basis I consider the case falls in the middle of Band 4 and justifies a starting point of 18 years.

[56] From this starting point, the aggravating and mitigating factors of you need to be considered. In terms of aggravating features the Crown says that at least some of the offences were committed while you were on bail or subject to a sentence. And the time frames indicate that this is the case. There must also be some uplift for your prior convictions. The offending is also significantly aggravated by the remaining

21 charges to which you have pleaded guilty.

[57] In respect of the fact you offended while you were on bail and/or subject to a sentence and your previous convictions I do not consider these require a significant uplift. The current offending is of an altogether different kind from the previous offending.

[58] However, whether an uplift is appropriate for the scale of the offending and the fact that it is offending against multiple victims is a more difficult question. It was clearly recognised in R v AM that offending against multiple victims increases the culpability of the offender. In that case the Court confirmed that when there were multiple victims, remaining within the guidelines may not give adequate recognition to the harm caused to each victim.

[59] And this is what the Court said:⁷

This aspect can be addressed in two ways.

First, by the recognition that prolonged offending involving multiple victims particularly in the familial context warrants higher starting points in rape Band 4. Secondly, by application of the provisions in the Sentencing Act relating to cumulative and concurrent sentences and the totality principle. In that context, we note that where there are multiple victims of offending (particularly in cases where there have been offences over a number of years against multiple victims), the 20-year maximum for one offence is not the maximum available sentence able to be imposed for the series of offending.

[60] In this case, there are a number of offences against a number of victims and the unlawful sexual connection charges are the next most serious charge. Looked at independently, these charges alone would justify a starting point somewhere in Band 3 of the unlawful sexual connection bands in that R v AM case. In my view, looking at matters in the round, the combination of your previous record and the other offending with which you have been charged, warrants an additional uplift of four years. That takes the provisional starting point to 22 years.

[61] In terms of mitigating features of you, the main mitigating feature is that you have pleaded guilty to the charges. As I said you have pleaded guilty to the least serious ones in September 2013 and you waited until February of this year to plead to the most serious charges. There should be some deduction from the maximum discount for this delay. However, more seriously, you attempted to vacate all but one of the pleas you entered in respect of these charges. This in my view is significant. Had you been permitted to, you would have proceeded to trial in the face of what I see to be overwhelming evidence against you, and which would have defeated all the benefits associated with entering the guilty plea. More importantly, the victims would have been compelled to endure the stress associated with giving evidence at trial and reliving what they had been through. The only saving grace here is that ultimately they did not have to do it, but you cannot accept full credit for that outcome.

[62] I also acknowledge that most recently you do, finally, appear to have some recognition of your offending and the harm it has done. So, to reflect the guilty pleas and a belated sense of remorse and recognition of what you have done, I apply a total discount of 15 per cent. The application of this discount to the end starting point takes that 22 year sentence down to 18 years, eight months.

[63] In terms of totality, I do not consider that end sentence violates the totality principle. Having considered comparable cases, and the seriousness of the offending, the outcome appears consistent.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[64] This is a case where a minimum period of imprisonment may be imposed by the Court, but it must not exceed the lesser of two thirds of the determinative sentence or 10 years. This is a case where, in my view, a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is necessary to protect the public and to denounce your offending and to hold you responsible. In 10 years your victims will be young adults, and hopefully less vulnerable and better equipped to cope with the prospect of your release. I therefore impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years.

Preventive detention

[65] As already mentioned, I have jurisdiction to consider preventive detention because you are aged over 18 and you are guilty of a qualifying sexual offence as defined in the relevant section of the Act. The third prerequisite is that I am satisfied you are “likely” to commit another qualifying sexual offence if you are released at the expiry date of any sentence of finite term.

[66] In considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention because of the likelihood of reoffending, I have to consider:

(a) any pattern of serious offending disclosed by your history;

(b) the seriousness of harm to the community caused by your offending;

(c) information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future;

(d) the absence of or failure of efforts by you to address the cause or causes of your offending; and

(e) the principle of a lengthy determinate sentence being preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.

So I discuss each of these issues now.

History of serious offending

[67] In terms of your conviction history, I do consider you have a significant conviction history. However, I acknowledge that, until the present suite of convictions, most of your convictions are for offending at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness and they do not include previous convictions for sexual offending. I consider this as a neutral factor in my assessment.

Seriousness of harm to the community

[68] In terms of serious harm to the community, that is undoubted and your lawyer responsibly acknowledges that.

Information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future

[69] In terms of your tendency to commit serious offences in the future, according to both health assessors, your score on the automated sexual recidivism scale puts you in a medium-high category for sexual recidivism and, using the STABLE 2007 approach to risk assessment, you are identified as being in the high risk group for sexual recidivism. Mr Matoui noted that your risk of sexual offending would be particularly elevated during occasions when you had unsupervised access to young children and your behaviour to date has demonstrated a clear pattern to your offending repertoire. However, it is pointed out that the instruments for assessment of future risk do not take into account situations or events that may occur in the future which may decrease risk, for example, successful treatment and Mr Matoui

does say that “successful participation in treatment would ameliorate the risk of future offending”.

[70] So turning to whether you have failed in efforts to address the cause of your offending.

The absence of or failure of efforts by the offender to address the causes of offending

[71] As I have said you have not appeared before the Court on offences of this nature and no previous interventions have been offered, nor have you voluntarily submitted yourself for treatment. I think it is fair to say, therefore, it cannot be said there has been an absence or failure of efforts on your part to address the causes of your offending. Furthermore, you have, finally, indicated to your health assessors a willingness to undertake treatment and a “desire” to desist from offending. In addition, while you earlier denied that your offending against your victims involved rape as you defined it, you do now accept the legal definition of rape and that you have committed that offence.

The principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society

[72] The final consideration is the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society. You will have gathered that you are looking at a lengthy determinate sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment.

[73] I accept that such a sentence will enable you to attend a programme such as the Kia Marama programme for sexual offenders. I also bear in mind that the Department of Corrections can apply for an extended supervision order near the time of your release from prison and that conditions can be imposed on you to monitor and reduce your risk upon release. I think that combination of factors adequately protects society.

Conclusion on preventive detention

[74] So in conclusion, I accept Ms Heah’s submission today that preventive detention is a sentencing tool to be used in the most extreme cases. It is not simply a default tool to be used for all extremely serious offences, of which yours is in that category.

[75] Taking into account all the matters, but putting particular weight on the fact that you are going to be subject to a lengthy determinate sentence, you are now prepared to address your offending, and you cannot be said to have failed in efforts to address the causes of offending, I have decided not to impose a sentence of preventive detention in the circumstances.

[76] So Mr Page, if you would stand now please.

[77] So in summary, I sentence you to a total of 18 years and 8 months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. I do not sentence you to preventive detention.

[78] I am required now to deliver you a three strikes warning.

[79] Given your conviction for qualifying offences, including rape you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequence of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice which contains a list of what constitutes these serious violence offences.

If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[80] You may stand down.

Solicitors:

Gresson Dorman & Co., Timaru

L L Heah, Barrister, Christchurch