Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions

R v Thompson [2021] NZHC 3452 (14 December 2021)

Last Updated: 27 January 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, (Kayes Fletcher Walker) Auckland Daniel Gardiner, Barrister, Auckland

R v THOMPSON (Sentencing Notes) [2021] NZHC 3452 [14 December 2021]

Introduction

• [1] Mr Thompson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of doing an indecent act on a nine year old child in 2014 or 2015,¹ and two charges of indecent assault of a 17 year old young woman in 2017.²

• [2] The first charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The indecent assault charges each carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

• [3] These charges were laid on 30 October 2019. Your guilty pleas were entered on 20 November 2020.

• [4] Both victims are part of your whānau. You are a first cousin of the mothers of each victim. Your partner at the time is an aunt of the victims so you were also their uncle.

• [5] You are already serving a sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment, having pleaded guilty to sexual violation by rape of a 26-year old woman who was also part of your whanau. That offending took place in 2018.

• [6] Gordon J sentenced you to your current sentence in February 2020 and imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 60 per cent of that sentence.³ That is, four years and four months. That sentence was imposed before the offending on which you are being sentenced today had come to light.

• [7] Because of your history of sexual offending, which extends well beyond the offending on which you are being sentenced today and for which you are currently sentenced, reports from two health assessors have been obtained in accordance with s 88 of the Sentencing Act 2002 in order that the Court can consider whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed.

¹ Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).

² Crimes Act, s 135.

³ R v Thompson [2020] NZHC 195.

• [8] When sentencing you last year, Gordon J found, by a fine margin, that a sentence of preventive detention was not necessary for the protection of the community, provided you undertook the appropriate programmes to address your sexual offending.⁴

• [9] Ms Norrie for the Crown submits that, in the light of this current offending and further information that has been obtained about your previous participation in treatment programmes, that a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years.

• [10] Your counsel, Mr Gardiner, submits that a sentence of preventive detention should not be imposed because you have the motivation to address and resolve matters that contribute to your sexual offending and have not had the opportunity to complete an intensive programme for sex offenders. For these reasons, Mr Gardiner submits that a finite sentence should be imposed.

Facts of your current offending

Indecent act on a child

• [11] In 2014 or 2015, the nine-year old niece of your then partner came to stay at your house to spend some time with her cousin. You and your partner arranged a mattress on the floor of your bedroom for the young girl.

• [12] While the young girl was sleeping on the mattress, you approached her and caressed her breasts over the top of her clothing. The girl woke and told you to stop but you continued to rub your hands back and forth across her breasts. The young girl started crying, at which point you apologised and went back to your bed.

Indecent assaults

• [13] Towards the end of 2017, there was a family gathering at Māngere. You and a 17-year old young woman were among several family members who went to bed on couches and beds set up in the living room.

⁴ At [57].

• [14] As the young woman slept on a single bed, you approached her, pulled your penis out of your pants and rubbed it while pressing it against her face.

• [15] The young woman pushed you away and tried to cover herself with a blanket, but you pulled the blanket off her and started to rub her legs with your hands. The young woman kicked your hand away and tried to cover herself with the blanket, but you continued to pull the blanket up and to touch her around her inner thigh.

• [16] The young woman got off the bed and went to the garage where other family members were still awake.

Victim impact statements

• [17] Each victim has made a victim impact statement which we have heard read out today. Each has expressed the insecurity and hurt they have experienced because of your actions and how that has affected their ability to feel safe and to trust others. You have had a terrible impact on the lives of young women who ought to have been able to trust you.

Pre-sentence reports

• [18] Two pre-sentence reports were prepared in March and May 2021. The reports note that you have an extensive conviction history beginning in 1993 and which consists of nine previous sexual offences, 10 violence offences, seven dishonesty offences, one drug-related offence, six driving offences and three non-compliance offences.

• [19] The first report assesses your likelihood of re-offending as high because of your extensive conviction history with minimal offence-free periods since 1993. Your risk of harm to others is also assessed as high because of your recidivist sexual offending and because you have continued to re-offend without considering the consequences of your actions or the harm you cause.

• [20] The reports disclose some confusion about the extent to which you have attended courses and treatment to address your sexual offending. The first report,

which was completed without an interview with you, states that you have completed numerous courses including sexual offending treatment courses and assessments from Corrections psychologists and Māori service providers. The second report, which was competed after an interview with you at Auckland South Corrections Facility, states that you told the report writer that you had not completed any programmes, but that you are highly motivated to engage in three programmes addressing sexual offending against children, drug abuse and the consequences of your difficult upbringing. However, I will address the issue of your participation in treatment programmes when considering the health assessors’ reports which has fuller information.

• [21] Both reports indicate that, despite your guilty pleas, you have continued to dispute the accuracy of the victims’ accounts or your responsibility for your actions. They recommend that an additional term of imprisonment is imposed to punish you and to enable you to complete the programmes I have described.

Approach to sentencing

• [22] Before considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention I must first determine an appropriate finite sentence.

• [23] In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Moses v R,⁵ that is usually a two-step approach: first, what is the appropriate starting point that should be adopted, having regard to any aggravating and mitigating features of the offending;⁶ and, secondly, what adjustments are appropriate for any aggravating and mitigating personal circumstances and for your guilty plea.⁷ However, in this case, my principal task is to determine what cumulative sentence should be added to your current sentence.

• [24] If I find that that cumulative finite sentence is not adequate to protect the community, I may then consider whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention.

⁵ Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.

⁶ At [46](a).

⁷ At [46](b).

• [25] In setting your sentence, I must have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act. Of particular relevance to your offending are the same considerations to which Gordon J referred when sentencing you in February last year. They are the need to hold you accountable for the harm you have done to the victims, to promote in you a sense of responsibility for your actions and acknowledgement of that harm, to denounce your conduct, to deter you and others from committing similar offences and to protect the community. I am also required to take into account the gravity of your offending, the need for consistency in sentencing levels and the need to impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.

Starting point

• [26] There is no guideline judgment for an indecent act on a child under 12 under s 132(3) of the Crimes Act 1961 or for indecent assault under s 135. In addition, the Court of Appeal has emphasised that, while imprisonment might frequently be required, there is no presumption that sexual offending against children will result in imprisonment.⁸

• [27] As the Crown submits and your counsel accepts, there are a number of aggravating features of your offending:

(a) First, because you are the uncle of the victims, your actions amount to breaches of trust by a person in authority, even if not of the most serious kind;

(b) Secondly, the vulnerability of the victims, one of whom was a child and the other aged 17, and both of whom were asleep when you approached them;

(c) Thirdly, the intrusiveness, intensity of the offending against the 17 year old and your initial refusal to stop after each of the victims asked you to do so;

⁸ R v Masei [2016] NZCA 481 at [10].

(d) Fourthly, the harm to the victims which I have already described.

• [28] Having regard to a number of decisions where starting points of between 18 months and three years’ imprisonment were adopted in relation to offending that had a number of similar features, the Crown submits that a starting point of between two and a half years and three years’ imprisonment would be appropriate. Your counsel accepts the relevance of the authorities referred to by the Crown but submits that a starting point of 22 months would be appropriate given the absence of premeditation or grooming and the relatively brief duration of the offending in both cases.

• [29] Counsel agree that your offending is most similar to that in Wild v R, where the Court of Appeal considered an adjusted starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate.⁹ However, the Crown says your offending was much more serious because it involved pressing your penis into the young woman’s face. The Crown also says aspects of your offending against the 17-year old alone are similar to that in R v Masei, where the Court of Appeal did not disturb a sentence set by reference to a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment but observed that 18 months’ imprisonment was the general starting point for an indecent assault of that nature where the touching of the victim’s genitalia, albeit over her underclothes, was prolonged and active.¹⁰

• [30] I agree that the offending against the 17-year old is more serious than that in both Wild and Masei. However, given the guidance by the Court of Appeal in Masei that 18 months’ imprisonment is a general starting point for an indecent assault of that nature and the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v M to set aside a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and to substitute a starting point of 24 months for offending that also had some similarities to your offending but involved a younger and more vulnerable victim as well as a younger offender,¹¹ I am satisfied that a starting point of two years and three months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

⁹ Wild v R [2019] NZCA 189.

¹⁰ R v Masei, above n 8, at [8].

¹¹ R v M [2009] NZCA 456.

Personal aggravating and mitigating features

• [31] Because I am satisfied that any finite sentence should be served cumulatively upon your current sentence, I do not consider it necessary to engage in a separate assessment of aggravating and mitigating features as distinct from the exercise carried out by Gordon J. I consider my task is to decide what level of uplift Gordon J would have applied in respect of the current offending had she been sentencing you on these offences at the same time and then apply the same uplifts and discounts applied by Gordon J, subject to the adjustment in the methodology for calculating discounts as mandated by Moses.¹²

• [32] However, I note that, on a stand-alone basis, if the same discounts applied by Gordon J with the Moses adjustment were applied to a starting point of two years and three months, the notional end sentence would be one year and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Cumulative uplift to current sentence

• [33] Ms Norrie submits that, if Gordon J had been sentencing you for the current offences as well as for the sexual violation by rape, Her Honour would have adopted a combined starting point in the region of 11 and a half to 12 years’ imprisonment rather than the nine years that Gordon J adopted. Assuming an uplift of 10 per cent as applied by Gordon J and a combined discount of 30 per cent in accordance with the approach mandated in Moses v R,¹³ that would have resulted in an overall finite sentence in the region of nine to nine and a half years. However, Ms Norrie then adjusts that notional sentence for reasons of totality and submits that a combined end sentence of eight years and eight months or a cumulative sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

• [34] Ms Norrie’s calculations are by reference to the Crown’s position that the starting point for the current offending should be two and a half to three years’ imprisonment.

¹² Moses v R, above n 5.

¹³ Moses v R, above n 5.

• [35] Mr Gardiner does not contest the methodology adopted by Ms Norrie but submits that the calculations should be by reference to the lower stand-alone sentence of one year and four and a half months’ imprisonment that he submits is appropriate.

• [36] I consider a more appropriate basis for determining the cumulative sentence is to consider what starting point Gordon J would have adopted if Her Honour had been sentencing you for the current offending as well as the much more serious sexual violation by rape offending. I consider Her Honour would have adopted a combined starting point of 10 years and 10 months based on the starting point of nine years adopted on the lead charge and a 22 month uplift to take account of the current charges. That is, I do not consider it appropriate to apply, by way of uplift, the full amount of the starting point for the notional stand-alone sentence.

• [37] Applying an uplift of 10 per cent and a combined discount of 30 per cent, that would result in an overall end sentence of eight years and three months’ imprisonment. When compared with the sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment imposed by Gordon J, that would mean a cumulative sentence of one year and one months’ imprisonment on the current charges.

• [38] Having regard to the gravity of the offending and considerations of totality, I am satisfied that is an appropriate cumulative sentence.

• [39] Gordon J’s decision that you should serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 60 percent of the original sentence stands. As Ms Norrie notes, because I am sentencing you for a period of less than two years’ imprisonment, I have no jurisdiction to impose a minimum period of imprisonment.¹⁴

Preventive detention

• [40] Having fixed what I consider to be the appropriate finite sentence, I must now consider preventive detention.

¹⁴ Pursuant to s 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

• [41] As Gordon J said when sentencing you last year, preventive detention is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. If it is imposed, you will be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community. The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose an on-going risk to the safety of its members.¹⁵

• [42] The Sentencing Act requires that before any sentence of preventive detention is imposed, a person must be convicted of a qualifying sexual or violent offence and must have been aged 18 years or older at the time of committing the offence.¹⁶ Both of the offences for which you are being sentenced today are qualifying sexual offences under s 87(5) of the Sentencing Act. You clearly satisfy the age criterion.

• [43] The third requirement is that the Court must be satisfied that you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violence offence if released at your sentence expiry date.¹⁷ If the Court is so satisfied, the decision as to whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention involves the exercise of a discretion.¹⁸ The standard is that the Court must be satisfied; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.¹⁹ Rather, the Court comes to a decision based on all the evidence available.²⁰

The health assessor reports

• [44] As required by s 88(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act, I must consider the reports of at least two appropriate health assessors about the likelihood of you committing a further qualifying sexual or violence offence. Two reports, both dated 24 August 2021, have been obtained for that purpose. One report has been prepared by Dr de Wattignar, a registered clinical psychologist. The other has been prepared by Dr Jacques, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. Dr Jacques also prepared a report for the purpose of the sentencing carried out by Gordon J.

¹⁵ Sentencing Act 2002, s 87(1).

¹⁶ Sentencing Act, s 87(2)(a) and (b).

¹⁷ Sentencing Act, s 87(2)(c).

¹⁸ Leonard v R [2013] NZCA 553 at [7].

¹⁹ R v Leitch [1998] 1 NZLR 420 (CA) at 428.

²⁰ R v Carline [2016] NZHC 114 at [44].

• [45] Both health assessor reports were prepared after interviews with you at the Auckland South Corrections Facility. Dr de Wattignar spent three hours with you over two sessions; Dr Jacques met with you once for approximately two hours for the purposes of his current report.

• [46] Both reports discussed your background, including the physical and sexual abuse you suffered as a child at home and at school, your history of substance abuse, the various concussions you have suffered and your general medical history, your relationships and your previous offending.

• [47] Dr de Wattignar noted that your sexual offending occurred consistently over a period of 20 years, included contact and non-contact offending, and that you had offended against child, adolescent and adult women. Your victims were vulnerable due to age or incapacity because they were asleep or were intoxicated. Three victims were members of your whānau in respect of whom you were in a position of authority and trust.

• [48] Dr Jacques noted that you attributed your offending to your own traumatic abuse as a child, substance abuse and stress. You also said you had not been given the right treatment or support and you externalised blame to Pākeha and the effects of colonisation.

• [49] Both Dr de Wattignar and Dr Jacques undertook risk assessments of the likelihood of you reoffending sexually, using professional risk assessment processes, and then provided their conclusions.

• [50] Dr de Wattignar was of the opinion that you can be considered a high risk of sexual recidivism if you were released into the community. You would be at risk of sexual reoffending against female family members who were asleep or otherwise incapacitated.

• [51] Dr Jacques also considered that you are at high risk of committing a future qualifying sex offence and that future victims were likely to be female, above or below the age of 16 and may or may not be known to you. However, Dr Jacques also

qualified that conclusion later in his report when stating that he believed the likelihood of you committing a future qualifying sexual offence is high without treatment or supervision.

• [52] Based on these reports as well as your history of previous offending, I am satisfied that you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual offence if released at the expiry of your current sentence and any cumulative sentence that I impose in addition to that sentence. That accords with the assessment Gordon J reached last year.²¹

Should a sentence of preventive detention be imposed?

• [53] Section 87(4) of the Sentencing Act sets out the matters to be taken into account when considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. They are:

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

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

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

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

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

• [54] I consider each in turn.

Pattern of offending

• [55] I agree with Gordon J’s assessment that your offending is on-going and varied.²² While the offending Gordon J was dealing with was far more serious, the

²¹ R v Thompson, above n 3, at [46].

²² At [49].

present offending was against vulnerable young people who are related to you. That feature of your offending, which is serious, was not apparent to Gordon J.

• [56] Ms Norrie’s submission that you have a demonstrated propensity to engage in opportunistic sexual offending against vulnerable women broadly accords with the assessments of the two health assessors. Mr Gardiner accepts those assessments.

Seriousness of harm caused to the community

• [57] There can be no doubt that you have done serious harm to your victims and those associated with them. You have engendered distrust and fear in young people who had every right to look to you for protection. You have also damaged relationships between families in your whānau group. As Dr Jacques said in his report, the repercussions of sexual abuse often have lifelong consequences for the victims.

Information indicating a tendency to commit a serious qualifying offence in the future

• [58] As I have already recorded, both health assessors placed you at high risk of further serious sexual offending. Your history and those assessments establish that risk, as I have already found.

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

• [59] Both reports also discussed the extent to which you have received treatment for your sexual offending, an issue on which Gordon J considered she did not have clear evidence when sentencing you last year.²³

• [60] Dr de Wattignar recorded that you initially said you had not received any treatment but then said you had had treatment, but it had been ineffective. The doctor then records that according to Corrections’ documents, you have been offered and have engaged in seven rounds of treatment, five of which were specifically related to your sexual offending. With regard to your sexual offending:

²³ At [55].

(a) in 2001, you received seven individual and seven group sessions of therapy to address sexual offending;

(b) in 2003, you attended the SAFE programme for approximately two months;

(c) in 2014, you had nine sessions of individualised treatment for sex offending but denied the offending throughout;

(d) in 2017, you completed six of eight sessions of individual therapy to address your risk factors and to form an individual safety plan.

• [61] As the Crown has noted, you offended again after each round of treatment. However, as Mr Gardiner has observed, the sentences to which you were subject at those times were generally of limited duration which could have constrained the effectiveness of the treatment.

• [62] In addition, you have engaged in five sessions working with a Māori Service Provider to explore mana, rangatiratanga and manaakitanga. You have also had one session of counselling for depression. However, you have not received any treatment for your own victimisation, and you have not received intensive sexual offender treatment such as the Te Piriti Child Sex Offenders programme. It is considered that this programme is the next likely step in your rehabilitative pathway.

• [63] Dr Jacques recorded your treatment history in more summary fashion. He said that you also told him that you had not received any treatment for sex offending but that, according to reports, you had engaged in some medium intensity treatment for sex offending provided by Corrections which had included individual and group therapy programmes. Dr Jacques also recorded that you have not been offered intensive child sex offence related programmes or therapy to address your own experiences of trauma.

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

• [64] This is the crux of the decision I have to make today. Can I be satisfied that a determinate sentence of eight years and two months’ imprisonment, combined with the treatment you will receive while in prison, will adequately protect society?

• [65] One big problem is that treatment to date, whatever its length and consistency, has not been successful.

• [66] Dr de Wattignar is very clear in her recommendation. She says that you have relapsed whenever an opportunity for sexual offending presented. The fact you re- offended not long after receiving treatment casts doubt on your ability to learn. While a lengthy finite sentence may provide you with the opportunity to engage in intensive sexual offender treatment and give you time to mature, your past and current conduct do not reflect a high degree of motivation to succeed in treatment. The doctor considers you will be vulnerable to relapse similar to your current offending and submits that the community may be best served if an indeterminate sentence is imposed.

• [67] Dr Jacques is less emphatic. He considers you have some insight into your own risk, you acknowledge your sexual deviancy, traumatic issues, relationship problems and substance use problems. He considers that for you to have the best chance of engaging in and making use of therapies and programmes, you should be offered programmes with Māori clinicians or therapists. Dr Jacques also says a lengthy finite sentence would give you the opportunity to be assessed for a high intensity programme such as the Te Piriti programme. However, he also says has some doubts as to whether you would engage in the programme.

• [68] Dr Jacques says a lengthy determinate sentence and an extended supervision order (ESO) might be considered to provide adequate community protection. He also says that although you are undoubtedly at high risk of sexual re-offending, he has some reservations in recommending preventive detention because you have not completed an intensive programme for sex offenders.
• [69] Ms Norrie submits that there can be no reassurance from the health assessors’ reports that your risk will substantially reduce during your time in prison, however lengthy. She says I can be satisfied that you will be likely to commit another qualifying sexual offence upon release and that you pose a significant and on-going risk to the community. Ms Norrie also says that an indeterminate sentence may provide you with the motivation to fully engage with your required rehabilitation rather than wait out your sentence, and that the Parole Board will be in the best position to monitor your progress and your risk to society.

• [70] Mr Gardiner submits that you do have the motivation to address and resolve matters that contribute to your sexual offending. He also submits that there has been a failure to identify your specific needs and to prioritise the appropriate level of treatment. He says the purpose of sentencing can be met by a determinate sentence of appropriate length.

• [71] The issue here, however, is not the purposes and principles of sentencing. It is the risk you pose to the community upon release and whether that risk can be adequately mitigated by the treatment programmes you will receive while in prison.

• [72] I am concerned that you seem to have a selective memory about the extent to which you have already received treatment and the value of that treatment. You also continue to struggle to accept responsibility for your actions and you look to blame others or factors external to you for your offending.

• [73] I accept that you have had a difficult upbringing. You have suffered, including at the hands of others. Your lot in life has not been easy. However, until you accept that you are responsible for your own actions, there must be doubt that you will take the opportunity of further treatment to really change your ways. You cannot blame others for abusing vulnerable young women who had a right to look to you for protection. Those are things you have done and for which only you can be responsible.

• [74] On the other hand, while Ms Norrie says a sentence of preventive detention may provide you with the motivation to engage with treatment, it is just as possible that such a sentence may incline you to give up any hope, even if, as the Courts have

emphasised, the sentence does not have a punitive purpose.²⁴ For that reason, a lengthy finite sentence coupled with the availability of an ESO at the end of your sentence, as suggested by Dr Jacques, has some merit.

• [75] While you are subject to an ESO, you can be subject to intensive monitoring and required to undertake further treatment. Conditions of supervision can include where you live and who you associate with. You can also be subject to conditions proscribing alcohol and drugs and be subject to regular testing.²⁵

• [76] While the Court of Appeal has said that a finite sentence to be followed by the available backstop of an ESO should not be viewed as an agreeable alternative to preventive detention,²⁶ it has also said that a sentencing Court must take into account the possibility of an ESO when considering whether or not to impose a sentence of preventive detention. ²⁷ It has also said the possibility of an ESO can be a potential safety valve which shores up the principle that a lengthy finite sentence is preferable to preventive detention,²⁸ that the availability of an ESO is a relevant consideration in preferring a lengthy determinate sentence,²⁹ and the availability of an ESO has the advantage of allowing the risk assessment to be made at the time the prisoner is to be released.³⁰

• [77] I do not see your situation as equivalent to that in Stroobant v R where the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of preventative detention stating the offender’s lack of insight into his offending and lack of empathy towards his victims.³¹ Nor do I consider it to be similar to that in R v Poa where the defendant had successfully completed the Te Piriti programme but had gone on to sexually violate and perform indecent acts on his five-year-old granddaughter on three occasions.³²

• [78] I see your case as much more finely balanced.

²⁴ R v Johnson [2003] NZCA 414; [2004] 3 NZLR 29 (CA).

²⁵ Parole Act 2002, pt 1A.

²⁶ R v Hutchinson [2007] NZCA 55 at [17].

²⁷ R v Mist [2005] 2 NZLR 791 (CA) at [102].

²⁸ R A J v R [2019] NZCA 581 at [69].

²⁹ R v Parahi [2005] 3 NZLR 356 (CA).

³⁰ Grant v R [2017] NZCA 614 at [52].

³¹ Stroobant v R [2018] NZCA 10.

³² R v Poa [2021] NZHC 770.

• [79] What has tipped the balance for me is that Gordon J considered that, on the basis of the more serious charge on which she was sentencing you, a sentence of preventive detention was not necessary for the protection of the community, provided you undertake the appropriate programmes.³³ While Her Honour did not have the same information as I have had about your previous treatment, nothing has changed to alter that assessment. Despite the discovery of the earlier but less serious offending, and despite the concerns that the health assessors and I have about your willingness to fully engage with treatment, it is still the case that your risk to the community will be appreciably reduced if you engage properly and complete the appropriate treatment programmes. And, for whatever reason, you have yet to receive any such treatment.

• [80] For these reasons, I am also satisfied that a sentence of preventive detention is not necessary to protect the community.

Sentence

• [81] Mr Thompson please stand.

• [82] On the charges of doing an indecent act on a child and on the two charges of indecent assault, I charge you to a sentence of one year and one month’s imprisonment on each charge.

• [83] Those sentences are to be served concurrently with each other, but they are to be served cumulatively with the sentence you are currently serving. As a result, you will serve a cumulative sentence of eight years and three months’ imprisonment.

Orders

• [84] Doing an indecent act on a child is a Class 2 offence under sch 2 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. That means you are a registrable offender for the purposes of that Act. Because you have been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence, your name will be automatically entered into the Child Sex Offender Registrar. When you are released from prison,

³³ R v Thompson, above n 3, at [56].

you will be subject to mandatory reporting obligations as long as you are on the Register.

Recommendations

• [85] Although these are matters for Corrections, I strongly recommend that:

(a) you be placed as soon as possible on an intensive programme for sex offenders and that a serious effort is made for you to be able to engage with Māori clinicians and therapists; and

(b) an extended supervision order be considered before you are released.

• [86] Lastly, I want to say a few words to your whanau who are here today. Thank you for coming and supporting your son, brother and father. He needs your support, not just now but well into the future. But that support has to extend to helping him face up to his issues. Hiding them and asking others to say nothing does not help him or the whanau. It does terrible damage to his victims. If there is a road to recovery, it will be hard but it will be worth it. Mana and mahi go together.

• [87] Mr Thompson, please stand down.

G J van Bohemen J