Sentencing — sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection — doing an indecent act on a child — discount — youth — home detention — Sentencing Act 2002 — Crimes Act 1961, s 128(b)(2) — Moses v R [2020] 3 NZLR 583 — Renwick v R [2020] NZCA 480 — R v Sanday CA146/99, 29 July 1999 — S v R [2017] NZHC 205 — R v Lynch HC, Hamilton CRI-2010-019-003449, 9 September 2010 — Disciple v Police [2022] NZHC 2797 — Gillard v R [2020] NZHC 1140 — R v Gay [2017] NZHC 3149 — D v Police (2000) 17 CRNZ 454 — Mines v R [2022] NZCA 113 — Solicitor General v Rawat [2021] NZHC 2129 — Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611 — Churchward v R [2011] NZCA 531 — R v Hockley [2009] NZCA 74 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA) — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 — R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 — R v Wong [2001] HCA 64 — R v Markarian [2005] HCA 25 — Crump v R [2020] NZCA 287 — Martin v R [2022] NZCA 285 — Dickie v R [2023] NZCA 2, [2023] 2 NZLR 405 — Cossey v R [2021] NZCA 677 — Luke Elborough “Standing back in Martin v R” [2023] NZLJ 35. The defendant appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one of doing an indecent act on a child. The defendant had offended against a young girl who was close to the defendant's family. Counsel agreed that a starting point of seven years' imprisonment for the offending was appropriate, based on guideline decisions from the higher courts. The Court then had to consider whether any discounts were appropriate. Counsel for the defendant submitted discounts totaling 95 per cent were appropriate, and the prosecution proposed discounts totaling 72 per cent. Counsel for the defendant submitted that an end sentence of home detention was appropriate, and the prosecution agreed that home detention may be appropriate if the notional end sentence was less than two years' imprisonment. The Court noted this was a most unusual situation. The aggravating factors of the offending were the victim's age, the breach of trust, the repeated nature of the offending, and the flow-on effects to the victim and her family. On the mitigating features, the Court provided discounts for an early guilty plea (25 per cent), assistance to police (20 per cent), youth (20 per cent), previous good character (five per cent), and personal circumstances and rehabilitative steps (five per cent). Applying those discounts, a notional end sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was reached. The Court converted this to a sentence of 10 months' home detention. The Court also ordered that the defendant make an emotional harm payment to the victim of $5,000. Judgment Date: 31 May 2024.