Sentencing — indecent assault — disabling — sexual violation — stupefying — intimate visual recordings — victim report — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 27 & 86 — R v AM (CA27/209/ [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750 — R v Sturm [2007] NZCA 175 — R v Arvand CA145/03, 9 October 2003. Two defendants were for sentence on a total of 69 charges related to the drugging and sexual violation of 23 different victims. The offending occurred at a bar in Christchurch over a period of almost four years. The first defendant was sentenced on 28 charges involving eight victims and the second defendant was sentenced on 41 charges involving 19 victims. Four victims were offended against by both defendants. There were 15 victim impact statements and the Court described the defendants' actions against the victims as "heartless offending." Many of the victims still dealt with the trauma of the offending. Both defendants had a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment, as the Court stated there needed to be a recognition of the extensive victim harm, and deterrence and denunciation of the large-scale offending. Stupefying, the length of the indecent assaults, possession of an objectionable image and making of intimate visual recordings were regarded as aggravating factors. Both defendants argued for credit for their guilty plea, first time offending, and contributions to the hospitality community. However, the Court noted that the first defendant only pleaded guilty after many victims had already come into court to give evidence of the sexual offending. This was contrary to the purpose of the guilty plea credit; however six months credit was given to the first defendant, and 12 months was given to the second defendant, as they still pleaded guilty. The defendants also argued that they were first-time offenders and that they had contributed to the community. The Court determined that due to the nature of the offending, prior good character was eliminated as a factor, and any "contribution" that they had made was a negative one. Therefore the Court only gave a six-month credit to both defendants. The end sentence for the first defendant was 17 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of eight years and six months. The second defendant was sentenced to 16 years and six months with a minimum period of eight years and three months. Judgment Date: 24 August 2023.