Butler v Police

Case [2017] NZHC 2972


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-419-000076 [2017] NZHC 2972

BETWEEN

BRYCE WILLIAM BUTLER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 1 December 2017

Counsel:

JD Bell and JL McLeod for Appellant
RG Douch for Respondent

Judgment:

1 December 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton.

Public Defence Service, Hamilton.

BUTLER v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2972 [1 December 2017]

[1]      On 9 November 2017 Judge M L S F Burnett sentenced Mr Bryce Butler to a four and a half month term of imprisonment.1     Mr Butler pleaded guilty, on the morning of trial, to a charge of causing harm by posting a digital communication, an offence contrary to s 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. Mr Butler had foreshadowed his plea two days earlier.   Mr Butler contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.  He contends his offending “was far less serious than that in Brittin”.2  And, a non-custodial sentence was adequate.

[2]      The facts are simple, albeit unusual.   In 2002 Mr Butler was convicted of indecent assault in relation to the victim.  She was then nine.  The offending resulted in a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.   On 25 February 2017 Mr Butler posted a message to the victim’s Facebook account.  It said:  “You are ugly and a bloody lier (sic)”. And, “don’t hug her she will have you arrested, it can’t be about sex”.

[3]      Contrary  to  Judge  Burnett’s  observation  at  sentencing,  the  message  was private, so no one other than the victim could read it. However, as the Judge correctly observed, the message re-victimised the victim long after the sexual offending in circumstances in which she would have believed all of that was behind her. Unsurprisingly, the victim impact statement describes the victim as extremely traumatised by the message, which she regarded as both “intrusive and shocking”. The victim was worried also Mr Butler may attempt to find her.

[4]      On behalf of Mr Butler, Mr Bell emphasises the difference between this case and Brittin.  Brittin involved the posting of intimate photographs of the victim and related commentary she was a person who would readily have sexual intercourse with others. As such, it arguably involved the paradigm case under s 22 of the Act.

[5]      The District Court Judge adopted a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Woodhouse J concluded the starting point ought to have been 12 months’ imprisonment.     Woodhouse  J  also  concluded  leave  for  home  detention  was

appropriate.   His Honour noted the maximum penalty was a term of two years’

1      Police v Butler [2017] NZDC 25422.

2      Brittin v Police [2017] NZHC 2410.

imprisonment.  The Judge saw Mr Brittin’s offending as serious, albeit at the mid- point in terms of culpability.

[6]      Plainly, this case has a number of differences from Brittin.  However, it does not follow Judge Burnett was wrong to impose a term of imprisonment.

[7]      First, Mr Butler had previously committed a serious sexual offence against the victim when she was a child.  Second, the instant offending re-victimised her many years after the event.  Third, Mr Butler had previously been sentenced to a term of home detention. As Judge Burnett noted, in 2009 Mr Butler possessed objectionable material.  That resulted in a sentence of home detention in 2012.  The pre-sentence report observed that sentence appears to have had “a limited affect as a deterrent” to further offending.  Denunciation was an available and indeed appropriate response.

[8]      Mr Bell observed if Mr Butler had made the same observations to the victim in the street he would have committed no offence. I accept that submission. However, the offence provision is cast broadly.   It recognises the capacity for harm digital technology can cause,  or at least misuse can  cause.   The case  exhibits unusual aggravating facts.

[9]      For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..

Downs J

Details
AGLC
Butler v Police [2017] NZHC 2972
Case
[2017] NZHC 2972
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Bryce William Butler, the appellant, challenged the sentencing decision of the District Court, which had imposed a four and a half-month term of imprisonment for posting a harmful digital communication, an offence under section 22 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge on the morning of his trial, having previously foreshadowed his plea. The crux of the appeal was the appellant's contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that a non-custodial sentence would have been adequate. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, especially considering the previous history between the appellant and the victim.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the applicability of the circumstances in Brittin v Police, and whether the sentence imposed was justified under the circumstances. The court needed to consider whether the judge's starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was correct or if the appropriate starting point was 12 months’ imprisonment as suggested in the previous appeal. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the appellant's previous history of offending, specifically a serious sexual offence against the same victim when she was a child, warranted a more severe sentence. The court also had to examine the impact of the digital communication on the victim and whether the sentence was justified in the context of the potential maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

The court concluded that the judge's imposition of a term of imprisonment was appropriate. It was noted that the appellant had previously committed a serious sexual offence against the victim when she was a child, and the instant offending had re-victimised her many years later. The court also considered that the appellant had previously been sentenced to a term of home detention for possessing objectionable material, which appeared to have had a limited effect as a deterrent. The court found that the digital communication caused significant harm to the victim, who was extremely traumatised and believed the appellant might attempt to find her. The unusual and aggravating facts of the case supported the judge's decision to impose a term of imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not find merit in the appellant's contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive, nor did it accept the argument that a non-custodial sentence would have been adequate. The court held that the judge's decision to impose a term of imprisonment was justified under the circumstances and in accordance with the relevant legal principles. The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.