Sentencing — attempted sexual violation — causing harm by posting a digital communication — driving with excess breath alcohol — home detention — judicial monitoring — driving disqualification — alcohol interlock licence — zero alcohol licence — Sentencing Act 2002, s 80ZJ — Pesefa v R [2016] NZCA 35 — Sherrat v R [2021] NZHC 1901 — R v Bevins [2019] NZHC 1754. The defendant was for sentence on one charge each of attempted sexual violation, causing harm by posting a digital communication and driving with excess breath alcohol. On the charge of attempted sexual violation, the defendant had climbed into a friend's (the victim) bed, removed the victim's underwear and tried to have sex with him. They were interrupted by a friend of the victim. On the charge of causing harm by posting a digital communication, the defendant had made posts on social media, naming a serving police officer, making false allegations against him and offering to reveal the officer's home address "to the highest bidder". On the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, the defendant had been required to undergo a roadside breath-test, resulting in a high reading of 923 micrograms. The aggravating factors of the attempted sexual violation offending were the breach of trust, injury, and emotional harm. The aggravating factors for the harmful digital communication charge were the multiple posts which illustrated premeditation, and harm caused to the victim. In setting a starting point, the Court observed there was no guideline case for attempted sexual violation nor for causing harm by posting a digital communication. The Court adopted a starting point of four years and three months' imprisonment on the attempted sexual violation charge, and one year and three months' imprisonment on the harmful digital communication charge. On the excess breath alcohol charge, the Court adopted a starting point of nine months' imprisonment. The total starting point of six years and three months was adjusted down for totality to five years and six months' imprisonment. The Court then considered whether any uplifts were required, adding an uplift of four months for offending while on bail. The Court gave discounts of 10 per cent for personal circumstances, five per cent for commitment to rehabilitation, and 15 per cent for guilty pleas. This resulted in an end sentence of four years and one month imprisonment; however, the defendant had spent 861 days in custody prior to release on bail. The defendant then spent 14 months on electronically-monitored bail, and 10 months and two weeks on ordinary bail. The Court considered an appropriate sentence to be one of 12 months' home detention for the attempted sexual violation charge, six months for the harmful digital communication charge, and three months for the excess breath alcohol charge, to be served concurrently. The Court also ordered judicial monitoring of the defendant while on home detention, which it noted was an unusual step. On the excess breath alcohol charge, the Court also disqualified the defendant from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 28 days, after which time he could apply for an alcohol interlock licence, and then a zero alcohol licence after complying with the requirements of the alcohol interlock licence. Finally, the Court also issued a final warning under the three strikes law. Judgment Date: 10 June 2022.