R v Walmsley [2016] NZHC 1407 (24 June 2016)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

R v Walmsley [2016] NZHC 1407 (24 June 2016)

Last Updated: 30 August 2016

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2014-076-000704 [2016] NZHC 1407

THE QUEEN

v

_{FRANK RUSSELL WALMSLEY}

Hearing:	24 June 2016
Appearances:	A R McRae for Crown C M Ruane and D Brown for Defendant
Judgment:	24 June 2016

_{SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J}

Introduction

[1] Mr Walmsley, you may remain seated at this point. I will ask you to stand shortly.

[2] Mr Walmsley you appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury in this Court and convicted on 26 April 2016 on 52 charges of predominantly sexual violation offences. These include 13 counts of rape, 14 counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, 10 counts of sexual conduct with a young person aged between 12 and 16, seven counts of indecent act with intent to insult or offend, one count of sexual conduct with a child under 12, two counts of attempted

_{sexual violation by rape, two counts of male assaults female, one count of attempted}

R v WALMSLEY [2016] NZHC 1407 [24 June 2016]

sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, one count of indecent assault and, lastly, one count of assault with a weapon.

[3] At the time of your offending the maximum penalty for your most serious offending, being the rape charges, is 20 years. You appear today for sentence on all charges.

[4] Shortly I will first turn to outline the facts of your offending briefly but before I begin I wish to remind the public and all present that all names and identities of the victims and their families in this case are suppressed. With this in mind I will use names in these sentencing remarks which are not the true names of the victims or their families.

The facts

[5] Turning to the facts here Mr Walmsley, your offending has involved two clear and distinct groups of offending over the course of two periods of time which spanned in total 12 years. The first set of offending occurred between 1995 and

2000 within the Child Youth & Family Home at Oamaru for which you and your wife were approved Family Home caregivers. In the late 1980s you and your wife began as caregivers for Child Youth & Family, fostering a number of children for short periods of time. In the mid 1990s you then became approved Family Home caregivers and operated the Oamaru Family Home.

[6] The first group of your victims who I will call the CYFS children were four young people placed by the State into the Oamaru Family Home you and your wife ran and managed at the time. These youngsters had all clearly come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds and you would have known of these backgrounds having seen the care plans that preceded the arrival of each of these children at the Family Home. These victims had been placed into the care of Child Youth & Family unquestionably because of their urgent need at the time for protection, care and support. Mr Walmsley you breached the significant trust placed in you to ensure these basic rights were afforded to these four victims it would seem for nothing more than personal sexual gratification.

[7] The CYFS children were all of a similar age, about 13 to 16 and without question, as I have said, were at very vulnerable stages of their lives. They were clearly susceptible to grooming, whether it was by affection, bribery with cigarettes or alcohol or otherwise. As a mature adult, Mr Walmsley, in a position of control and authority over these children, you exploited their vulnerabilities, targeting each, threatening them and telling them that if they complained they would not be believed. Consequentially, the trauma each of these unfortunate victims had suffered in their early lives continued and, indeed, it escalated while they were resident in what they thought was a safe family home. That was one where they should have been safe and secure but you ensured this was not to be the case.

[8] The consequences of your actions, Mr Walmsley, it is clear from the victim impact statements before the Court from each of these four CYFS children have haunted these victims in their adult lives. This, almost without exception has stunted their potential and hindered their ability to form relationships with others. Your conduct in the Family Home can only be seen as a total abdication of your primary responsibility and duty to these vulnerable young people.

[9] The second distinct set of offending you engaged in followed some five years later, between 2005 and 2012. It involved four sisters from a vulnerable family in Oamaru which you had befriended. I will call this family the Smith family, although that is not their real name.

[10] For the Smith sisters who were aged 10 to 17 at the time your offending was brazen, well planned and it involved extensive grooming. It commenced in 2005 even and perhaps surprising in spite of the fact that you had been the subject of a police investigation in 2000 relating to a complaint by one of the CYFS children which did not proceed.

[11] Mr Smith, the father of the four Smith girls, was a work associate of yours who you befriended along with his wife and their daughters. Mrs Smith, it seems, had significant mental health issues. You managed your relationship with Mr and Mrs Smith to get alongside and have access to the four Smith daughters and to manufacture occasions when you would see them alone. Your EFT and counselling

services which you were offering provided what was a perfect cover for your offending which continued even after you had left Oamaru to live in Christchurch. You would return to Oamaru to visit in weekends and holidays and take the opportunity to visit and take the Smith sisters, or at times a combination of some of them, on outings. You groomed them all to perform sexually by the promise of things that would not have been otherwise available to them.

[12] This offending against the Smith daughters occurred in cars, at the beach and other locations, in your house and sleepout office and even in the Smith’s own house. Again, it was a significant breach of trust on your part against extremely vulnerable young girls, all suffering from various mental impairments. You were able to exploit these girls again on occasions using threats and also with the knowledge that they would either not know what you were doing was wrong or, if they complained, they would not be believed.

[13] Returning now to the CYFS children, your first victim, who I will call Bianca, was aged between 14 to 15 years old when she was in your care. So far as Bianca was concerned, the offending against her occurred in and around the CYFS family home, again where she was supposed to feel safe. The jury found you guilty on two counts of indecent assault so far as Bianca was concerned, one being representative in nature which means happening on more than one occasion. You were also convicted on one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one count of attempted rape by penile penetration into her vagina.

[14] The second CYFS victim, a young boy at the time, who I will call Mitchell, was also a close friend of Bianca. The jury found you guilty of one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection when in the Family Home one evening you digitally penetrated Mitchell’s anus.

[15] The third CYFS victim, who I will call Karen, was subjected to what can only be described as horrendous sexual abuse at your hands. She was aged between

13 to 14 years when she was in your care. As against Karen, the jury found you guilty on five counts of sexual violation by rape, one being representative in nature. You were also convicted on one count of unlawful sexual connection involving you

requiring her to give you oral sex, and one count of indecency with a girl between 12 and 16 years old. Many of these offences were committed with the use of threats, force or coercion.

[16] The fourth CYFS victim, who I will call Kelly, was aged between 14 to 15 years when she was in your care. The jury found you guilty on two charges of rape and three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, two of those charges being representative in nature in relation to Kelly. You were also convicted on two charges of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, one charge of sexual indecency with a girl between 12 and 16, and one charge of male assaults female.

[17] Your sexual offending against Kelly was prolonged and extreme. As a result, Kelly spiralled down into a vicious cycle of drug abuse to cope with the physical and emotional trauma sustained by your sexual abuse. Again you clearly used bribes, threats and violence to gain sexual gratification. Your abuse of Kelly led to an investigation by CYFS and the police in 2000 following a complaint by her. While the investigation at the time did not lead to any prosecution, you and your wife decided to cease being CYFS Family Home carers.

[18] However, not long after, you became associated with the Smith family in Oamaru, as I have noted. You told Mr and Mrs Smith specifically that you had completed a course, as I have said, called EFT which in part involved a touching process aimed at relaxing the body and calming the mind, as I understand it. Around the same time an older daughter in the Smith family was going through difficult times at school. You convinced the parents that your EFT treatment (and counselling you would also provide) would be able to help. Soon afterwards, three daughters were also treated by you.

[19] The older Smith daughter that you first offended against was under the age of

12 when the offending began. I will call her Anna. The jury found you guilty on one representative charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12, two representative charges of sexual conduct with a young person under 16, two representative charges of indecent assault, three representative charges of rape, four representative charges

of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and one charge of assault with a weapon. All the charges of sexual violation, as I have said, were representative in nature. I repeat that this means that the abuse happened on more than one occasion. All this offending occurred for about six years.

[20] Anna once told you that she was going to report you to the police. You told her that no one would believe her and boasted that you were once reported for something similar by someone else but no one believed them. On one occasion, when she refused to give you oral sex, you threatened that you would make her younger sister do it. You manipulated her and you made her feel guilty. She often did what you wished in the mistaken belief that this would protect her sisters and they would be safe.

[21] The second Smith daughter, who I will call Juliet, was only 10 years old when your offending first occurred. The jury found you guilty of one representative charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12 years old and one representative charge of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend against her. The incidents in question occurred on numerous occasions when you would take naked photos of Juliet and indecently touch her genitals.

[22] The third Smith daughter, who I will call Kathy, was about 13 or 14 when the offending against her first started. The jury found you guilty on two charges of rape, one charge of attempted rape, three charges of unlawful sexual connection, (one of them being representative), and one charge of attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. You were also convicted on two charges of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, one being representative.

[23] Finally, the last Smith daughter, who I will call Serena, was under the age of

16 when you first offended against her. The jury found you guilty on one representative count of rape, two representative charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, three representative charges of sexual conduct with a young person under 16 and one representative charge of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend.

Sentencing Principles

[24] I turn now to the relevant sentencing principles I am required to apply. In sentencing you, Mr Walmsley, I am required to have regard to the purposes and principles contained in the Sentencing Act. The sentence I impose must hold you accountable for the harm done to the victims here and to the community by your offending. It must promote a sense of responsibility in you for the harm and denounce the conduct in which you are involved. It must deter you and other persons from committing the same or similar offences, and I must also protect the community from any further offending by you. However, I must also be mindful to impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances and to maintain consistent sentencing levels.

[25] With all this in mind, there can be no dispute that the only appropriate sentence here is one of imprisonment and, as your counsel, Mr Walmsley, has acknowledged, this necessarily must be a lengthy sentence of imprisonment.

[26] In assessing the sentence to be imposed on you I am required to have regard to the effect that your offending has had on your many victims. I have received victim impact statements from all eight of the victims and we have heard today several of those victim impact statements read out. I have carefully read all of the victim impact statements. They are very troubling. They make chilling reading. You have heard, as we all have, two of those victim impact statements courageously read out today by one of those CYFs victims and one of the Smith sisters. Very brave young women and I thank them for doing so. We have also heard three other victim impact statements read to the Court today.

[27] All eight of the affected victims and their wider families have suffered significantly as a result of what you have done, Mr Walmsley. It is clear that your offending has had a devastating effect upon them all. All these victim impact statements are particularly sad and concerning. It is clear you have caused irreversible trauma to the victims that you abused, many over a decade and a half ago, and all had to carry on their lives suffering the emotional harm caused by your offending.

Sentencing Approach

[28] I now turn to the sentencing process. In doing so I take the thirteen counts of rape as the lead offences here. The approach to sentencing requires me in this case to first assess the starting point. By this I mean the starting point appropriate for the offending after an assessment of culpability factors but without taking into account your personal circumstances, Mr Walmsley. In your case, given the considerable number of victims and the time gap between the two distinct groups of offending, I approach this matter initially on the basis that cumulative sentences may be appropriate for each group of offending but adjusted for appropriate totality.

[29] In fixing a starting point I receive assistance from the tariff judgment of R v AM¹, a decision delivered by the Court of Appeal in which the Court establishes four bands delineated by seriousness for sexual offending. The culpability assessment factors relevant to your offending here, Mr Walmsley, include a range of matters and I will deal with these now.

Planning and Premeditation

[30] The first is planning and premeditation. So far as planning and premeditation is concerned, in my view, Mr Walmsley, without question you carried out your offending with significant planning and premeditation. You took steps to get all the victims in question alone, bribed the victims with alcohol or with gifts with a view to offending, and used threats of violence and coercion to make sure no one else found out. As I see it, planning and premeditation were present both with regard to the CYFS children and the Smith daughters to a high degree.

Vulnerability of victims

[31] Secondly, all eight victims that you offended against were vulnerable youngsters. They were aged between about 10 and 16 years old. The CYFS children placed under your care were extremely vulnerable often coming, as I have said, from troubled families, and sometimes victims of abuse already. They were put under

_{your care with the hope in some cases that they could seek refuge from their}

¹ R v AM [2010] NZCA 114; [2010] 2 NZLR 750, at [108] –[109].

unfortunate backgrounds. Instead of taking care of them and protecting them you exacerbated their situation by sexually abusing them, out of a sense of entitlement, for your own personal gratification. Similarly, as I have indicated, the Smith girls were vulnerable in the extreme as well.

Harm to victims

[32] Thirdly, I turn to consider the harm you have inflicted on your victims. The victim impact statements, as we have heard, are extremely sad and make very concerning reading. A number of the victims turned to drugs, alcohol and other substance abuse to cope with the physical and emotional trauma suffered by your abuse.

Scale of offending

[33] Fourthly, I turn to the scale of your offending. Having already noted the facts of the offending and the number of victims you sexually violated, it goes without saying that the scale of the offending and the extended periods of time over which it occurred was very significant. Many of the rape and unlawful sexual connection charges are representative in nature. The first offending occurred, it seems, in 1996 and, despite a complaint to the authorities in 2000, you continued to offend again from about 2005 right up to the end of 2012.

Breach of trust

[34] Fifthly, I turn to consider the issue of breach of trust. There is a certain irony with regard to the CYFS victims being abused by you in the sense that they were under your care to provide support and protection for them from, in many cases, abuse they were suffering elsewhere. You were trusted by the State to take care of these children. However, you clearly abused this trust and took advantage of the children for your own personal sexual gratification.

[35] The breach of trust also that you committed against the four Smith sisters and their family is also significant. At the time of the offending Mr Smith, the father of the four sisters, was going through a difficult period and Mrs Smith herself was quite

unwell. You convinced them to trust you and to let you take care of their daughters. You then took advantage of that trust and abused them.

Assessment of these culpability factors

[36] In taking into account all these culpability assessment factors in relation to other cases which counsel have referred me to in their submissions I consider, and generally both counsel before me agree, that your sexual violation by rape offending, Mr Walmsley, falls at least into the lower part or middle of band 4 of the categories outlined in R v AM. Band 4 provides a sentencing range starting point of between 16 and 20 years imprisonment.

[37] The decisions counsel have referred me to are suggested to be cases where the offending is of a similar or perhaps slightly more severe scale. The first case I have been referred to is the recent decision in R v Burrett in which the defendant as a caretaker and bus driver at a primary school sexually abused eight children.² A particularly aggravating feature in that decision, one that has not happened here, is the fact that two of the victims were both severely mentally and physically disabled.

In Burrett a sentencing starting point of 26 years was adopted. However, as I see it, I do not feel the current circumstance is quite as severe as the position in Burrett and therefore will not adopt a starting point as high as Burrett.

[38] The second decision is B v R. Here the victims were the children of the defendant.³ The offending included sexual violation by rape, with all charges being representative. A starting point of 21 years was adopted and upheld on appeal. As I see it, this case in some ways bears some degree of similarity to the present circumstance.

[39] The third decision referred to is R v AF. In that case a pastor of a church was sentenced with respect to various sexual offending, including eight charges of sexual violation by rape.⁴ The circumstances were to some extent similar in the fact that it

_{occurred over a period of 16 years. The victims, however, were younger in R v AF,}

² _{R v Burrett [2016] NZHC 644.}

³ _{B v R [2011] NZCA 654.}

⁴ R v AF [2013] NZHC 822.

being around 6 to 7 years old. An end sentence of 20 years, being adjusted for totality, was imposed.

[40] Band 4 in R v AM encompasses a sentencing range, as I have noted, of between 16 and 20 years’ imprisonment. Both Mr Ruane, your counsel Mr Walmsley, and Mr McRae agree that a starting point sentencing of between

16 and 18 years imprisonment on the CYFS children rape charge offending and a starting point sentencing approaching this figure on the Smith sisters rape charge offending is appropriate, subject to the total period of imprisonment to be ultimately imposed being not out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending.

[41] On balance, Mr Walmsley, your offending is slightly more serious than that in the case of B v R but not as serious as that in Burrett and perhaps in AF where starting point sentences of 26 and 28 years respectively were adopted. There are eight complainants here with offending involving repeated and serious abuse. The breach of trust and vulnerability of these victims is at the high end of the scale. While the victims were younger in Burrett and some had significant disabilities, your case, Mr Walmsley, involves more instances of sexual violation by rape. With regard to the decisions in B v R and R v AF the present case involves a greater number of victims and a greater number of instances of sexual violation by rape.

[42] Your offending, Mr Walmsley, encompassed periods in total of 12 years and continued despite your having been investigated in 2000. This investigation instead of curtailing your conduct seemed to give you more confidence, hence targeting the vulnerable Smith sisters.

[43] I need to ensure here that the total period of your imprisonment, however, is not wholly out of proportion to the gravity of your overall offending and I need to adjust your starting point sentence for totality.

[44] On this aspect it is noted that in his submissions before me on your behalf, as we have heard, Mr Ruane said an adjusted end starting point of something in the order of 20 to 25 years was appropriate here. And we have heard also this morning

from Mr McRae that after adjusting for totality the Crown, in his submissions, have suggested that a starting point sentence of between 24 and 26 years was appropriate.

[45] Having regard to all the matters I have mentioned I have decided here that an end adjusted starting point sentence, without taking into account your personal aggravating and mitigating features, Mr Walmsley, of 22 years imprisonment is appropriate, given the unique and troubling circumstances of your offending.

Offender’s personal circumstances

[46] Turning now to your personal circumstances, Mr Walmsley, you are aged 57 and have no previous relevant convictions. It would seem that apart from the offending for which you are now to be sentenced, you appear to have led an otherwise generally productive life. You have a close supportive family and it is said you have contributed to various charities, sports groups and community based organisations in the towns in which you have lived in the past.

[47] A number of references and testimonials have been provided to the Court. I

have read these and I will address the position concerning these references shortly.

[48] But, Mr Walmsley, throughout you have denied and continue to deny this offending. As a result, no issues of remorse on your part arise here. I will treat these aspects as the absence of any mitigating feature rather than an aggravating feature here.

Personal aggravating and mitigating factors

[49] In turning to consider whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors personal to your circumstance, this is your first appearance before the criminal court and therefore no uplift is required to reflect any prior offending. However, at the same time, and notwithstanding the references and testimonials which have been provided to the Court, I am also not prepared to give you any credit for any perceived good character. In a very recent decision the Supreme Court in King v R,

_{held that:}⁵

⁵ King v R [2016] NZSC 13 at [5].

On any view of it, sustained offending in two significant periods over an 11 year timeframe against multiple complainants in circumstances involving grave breaches of trust undermines totally any claim to recognition of previous good character.

[50] In accordance with the Supreme Court’s approach, you are therefore not entitled to any discount for recognition of previous good character. I conclude, therefore, that there are no aggravating or mitigating features personal to you, Mr Walmsley, that need to be factored in here. .

Probation Report

[51] Finally, I need to say that I have received and carefully considered a copy of the pre-sentence report prepared by the Department of Corrections. This has identified you, Mr Walmsley, as at a high risk of reoffending. The report states in part:

Factors behind this offending are sexual gratification, a sense of entitlement and violence. His victims were young and vulnerable and ironically placed under his guardianship because they required care and protection.

The likelihood of reoffending is assessed as high. Although a first offender, he refuses to acknowledge his offending and consequently will be ineligible for any treatment programmes in the future. That places him up the scale in relation to possible further offending. Despite coming to the notice of the authorities in 2000, that was not a sufficient deterrent to cease his behaviour and that is a concerning element. The risk of harm is assessed as high for exactly the same reasons. The only recommendation can be imprisonment. Any conditions on release will be set by the Parole Board.

[52] As already noted, the sentence that I must impose on you today is one of lengthy imprisonment. We are considering here, obviously, a pattern of serious offending. The nature of the offending and the age and vulnerability of all your victims place this conclusion beyond any doubt. The seriousness of the harm to the community caused by your offending also goes without saying. Offending such as this sends ripples throughout our society. It is devastating for the victims. It is equally devastating for their parents who often believe they have let their children down. It goes much further than this, however, and permeates society at many levels. People become less trusting. People and decision-makers have grave fears about allowing their young children to be in CYFS care or in the company of persons such as you. Mr Walmsley, your consistent denials of any offending, which illustrate

a complete lack of insight into that offending, will inevitably delay any chances you may get in seeking treatment and help in dealing with the issues that underlie this offending, treatment which is so clearly needed.

Minimum terms of imprisonment

[53] I turn now to the issue of a minimum term of imprisonment. In any situation where a court sentences an offender to more than two years’ imprisonment, it has the power under s 86 of the Sentencing Act to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. This means the terms of imprisonment the offender must serve before being permitted to apply for parole. The Court can only order a minimum term of imprisonment to be imposed where that is necessary to reflect principles of deterrence, denunciation, accountability and the need to protect the community.

[54] All of those factors to which I have just referred are clearly engaged here and, in particular, the need to protect the public. The probation officer’s report, as I have noted, states that you pose a high risk of harm and a high risk of re-offending in a like manner. I would therefore impose a minimum term of imprisonment here for ten years.

Outcome

[55] Mr Walmslely, would you please stand. All of the sentences I am about to impose will be served concurrently. That is, at the same time. Mr Walmsley, you are now sentenced as follows.

[56] On each of the 13 charges of sexual violation by rape, that is charges 10, 12,

13, 14, 16, 22, 31, 46, 48, 50, 75, 77, and 94, you are sentenced to 22 years’

imprisonment on these charges.

[57] You are also sentenced to serve minimum periods of imprisonment of

10 years.

[58] On each of the 14 charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, that is charges 3, 7, 8, 18, 20, 27, 35, 51, 53, 56, 58, 83, 96 and 98 you are sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[59] On each of the two charges of attempted sexual violation by rape, that is charges 6 and 79 you are sentenced to four years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[60] On the one charge of attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, that is charge 81, you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[61] On the one charge of sexual conduct with a child under 12, that is charge 72, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[62] On each of the 10 charges of sexual conduct with a young person aged 12 to

16, that is charges, 1, 4, 11, 29, 41, 44, 87, 89, 91, and 95, you are sentenced to two

years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[63] On each of the seven charges of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, that is charges 17, 24, 71, 74, 85, 86 and 93 you are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[64] On each of the two charges of male assaults female, that is charges 30 and 37,

you are sentenced to one year, six months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[65] On the one charge of indecent assault, that is charge 42, you are sentenced to one year imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[66] And, finally, on the one charge of assault with a weapon, that is charge 68, you are sentenced to one year imprisonment to be served concurrently.

[67] I repeat, all of those terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently. The total effective sentence, therefore, is one of 22 years’ imprisonment for which you must serve a minimum of 10 years.

[68] Please stand down.

(Mr McRae asks whether the three strikes warning has been given.)

[69] I think it was given when I convicted Mr Walmsley. I have checked that with the Registrar and the warning I think was given at that stage so the three strikes warning has already been given to Mr Walmsley.

...................................................

Gendall J

Addendum

_MINUTE

[70] This is a minute issued with respect to CRI-2014-076-000704 R v Frank Russell Walmsley. Today I sentenced Frank Russell Walmsley in the Timaru District Court on a range of sexual offending. At the conclusion of that offending counsel raised with me an issue concerning the method of calculation of the sentence imposed of 22 years for the various sexual violation by rape charges (13 in total) which Mr Walmsley faced.

[71] Having heard submissions from counsel I agree that some clarification of the calculation of this 22 year concurrent sentence for the sexual violation by rape charges needs to be recorded.

[72] For the sake of clarity I now indicate that, so far as the CYFS children are concerned, which relate to a number of these rape charges, I have calculated a period of imprisonment for the sentence on these charges of 16 years.

[73] So far as the charges of sexual violation by rape relating to the Smith sisters is concerned, I have calculated a period, in each case, of 15 years’ imprisonment for these rape charges.

[74] Then I have dealt with these two individual groups of charges on a cumulative basis and scaled them back on a total level to a final sentencing relating to these charges of 22 years.

[75] The purpose of this minute is to provide clarification regarding this sentence.

[76] Effectively, therefore, I am sentencing Mr Walmsley to imprisonment of 16 years for the CYFS children sexual violation by rape charges and a cumulative term of imprisonment of six years for the Smith daughters sexual violation by rape charges to reach the total of 22 years I have reached.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Gresson Dorman, Timaru

Craig Ruane, Christchurch