NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360350.html	
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE	
CRI-2019-088-1656
[2021] NZHC 880	

THE QUEEN	

v	

MYLES ANTHONY BRUCE	

Hearing:	23 April 2021	
Counsel:	M B Smith for Crown
W D McKean and S L Plaisted for Defendant	
Sentenced:	23 April 2021	
Charges:	Threaten to kill (7); Injuring with intent to injure (2); Indecent assault (3); Assault with a weapon; Sexual violation by rape (11); Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (2); Male assaults female (3); Sexual violation by unlawful sexual
connection (4)	

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
MWIS Lawyers (Whangarei) for Crown WRMK Lawyers (Whangarei) for Defendant

R v BRUCE [2021] NZHC 880 [23 April 2021]

Introduction

[1]	Mr Bruce, the jury found you guilty on 33 charges, including charges in respect of each of your five partners. I have to sentence you today in accordance with the jury’s verdicts.

[2]	First, however, I have to give you a warning under what is known as the ‘three strikes legislation’. The law simply requires me to give this warning:

Given your convictions for rape, sexual violation and other serious violent offences, you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am now going to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences, which lists the ‘serious violent offences’.

If you are convicted on any serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

[3]	As you know, the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. So, I will structure this sentencing as follows. First, for each complainant, I will describe the charges and the evidence which I conclude the jury must have accepted in order to find you guilty. I will then calculate a starting point of imprisonment in respect of each complainant.

[4]	At the end of that process I will have five starting points. I cannot simply add them together to reach an overall starting point of imprisonment. The result would be too high. The law requires me to set an overall starting point which reflects the totality of your offending.

[5]	Once I have assessed the overall starting point, I will consider factors personal to you to decide if the starting point should be reduced.

[6]	I will then decide whether a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should be imposed.

[7]	Once that is done, I will have reached the sentence I will impose if I find a sentence of preventive detention is inappropriate.

[8]	Finally, then, I must decide whether a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed instead of the finite sentence I have calculated.

LT

[9]	I start with the charges on which you were found guilty in relation to LT. They are charge 2, threatening to kill (maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment), charge 4, injuring with intent to injure (maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment), charge 6, indecent assault (maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment), and charge 9, assault with a weapon (maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment).

[10]	The charges cover a date range of 23 December 2000 to 30 April 2001. You were both young. You started living together when Ms T was 16 years old and you were 17 or 18 years old. You were jealous and controlling of Ms T.

[11]	The charge of threatening to kill comes from an incident when you were driving Ms T home and you were jealous of her interactions with other boys. You told her you could quite easily kill her if you did not like her behaviour and you pointed out a power pole, saying you had lined up on your bonnet exactly the right point where you could drive into it and kill Ms T on impact. Ms T was scared by your threat and you intended her to take it seriously. However, there is no evidence you actually intended to carry out the threat.

[12]	The charge of injuring with intent to injure relates to the aftermath of an incident where Ms T was in the bath and you held her by the throat and pushed her backwards into the water and held her under the water. Ms T’s evidence was that this went to the point of being very scary. Ms T felt she was about to die. She also said it must have scared you because you were crying when you lifted her up. Ms T said that one effect on her was her lips were purple blue and they stayed that way for over a day.

[13]	The charge of indecent assault goes to your dislike of the fact that Ms T was not a virgin when she entered into her relationship with you. You had something of an obsession about virginity, which figures also in your later relationships with other complainants. On this occasion, after you had had sexual intercourse, you went and got a knife. You wanted to put the knife in between Ms T’s legs and you told her that you were going to show her what it is like to lose her virginity. At that time Ms T had her bra and a t-shirt on but did not have anything on the lower half of her body. Ms T said you grabbed her knee and put the knife going up her thigh. Ms T said she kicked your hand out of the way, grabbed a pair of boxer shorts and ran away. In the process, she broke a panel in the laundry door and cut her hand.

[14]	Finally, the charge of assault with a weapon relates to Ms T’s evidence that you were jealous of her and assaulted her with a knife, apparently to try to cut off an engagement ring she was wearing.

[15]	I take the lead offence as the indecent assault. There is no tariff for indecent assault, but “a general range for indecent assault should be between six months and two years’ imprisonment”.1 Lengthier starting points tend to be for “the most serious in terms of culpability for offending of this type”.2 The main aggravating feature is the threat with the knife in the context of a betrayal of domestic trust. I will adopt a starting point of three years’ imprisonment.

[16]	As to the threat to kill, it was calculated but not seemingly planned. It was made in circumstances where you had the immediate power to carry it out. If I were sentencing on this charge alone, an 18 month sentence would be appropriate.

[17]	With regard to the charges of injuring with intent to injure and assault with a weapon, I apply the guideline judgment of R v Nuku.3 I consider the charge of injuring with intent to injure fits within band two of Nuku, and if sentenced alone, would attract a starting point of three years. Nuku provides guidance by analogy for the assault with

1	S v R [2017] NZCA 459 at [30], citing R v Hohaia CA221/05, 17 October 2005.
2	Craig v R [2019] NZSC 103 at [7], refusing leave to appeal from Troon v R [2019] NZCA 265.
3	Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.

a weapon charge. The assault with a weapon charge falls towards the top end of band one. I consider a two-year starting point appropriate on a standalone basis.

[18]	Standing back and looking at the totality of your offending against Ms T, I would adopt an overall starting point of five years’ imprisonment.

BW

[19]	I now come to the jury’s findings of guilty on charges in respect of BW.

[20]	Charges 10 and 11 were charges of rape (maximum penalty, 20 years’ imprisonment), charge 12 is a charge of threatening to kill (maximum penalty, seven years’ imprisonment), charge 13 is wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment), charge 14 is also wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, charge 15 is another charge of rape, charge 16 is injuring with intent to injure (maximum penalty, five years’ imprisonment), charge 17 is male assaults female (maximum penalty, two years’ imprisonment), charge 18 is also male assaults female, charge 19 is threatening to kill, and charge 20 is a further charge of threatening to kill.

[21]	The charges cover a date range of 11 February 2002 to 24 August 2007.

[22]	Charge 10 relates to an incident where your friend, Ryan, stayed the night in the bedroom next to the one in which you and Ms W were sleeping. Essentially, you wanted to have sex. Ms W told you she did not want to have sex and you insisted. You told her, “you’re fucking having sex”. Ms W told you more than once that she did not want to but you physically went ahead and had sexual intercourse with her despite her objections. You kept telling her “to be louder”. Ms W conceded she did not physically fight you or scream but her evidence was that she made it quite clear to you that she did not want to have sex.

[23]	The charge 11 allegation of rape is a representative charge. Ms W told the jury that on many occasions during her relationship with you, you had sexual intercourse with her when she did not consent. It happened with such frequency that she could

not describe the occasions individually. That is why the charge was a representative one.

[24]	Essentially, Ms W’s evidence was that you demanded sex from her daily. Your relationship with her got to a point where Ms W would either stop opposing having sex and let you go ahead or, worn down and not wanting to be subjected to more taunts and insults and manipulation, would not object to you having sex.

[25]	In order to convict you on this charge, the jury must have found that on at least one occasion you had sex with Ms W to which she did not consent because your treatment of her meant that your will overbore her will so that she could not maintain resistance any longer and submitted to your demands. Further, the jury must have found that on such occasions you did not believe on reasonable grounds that Ms W was consenting.

[26]	Given that Ms W’s evidence was that sexual intercourse amounting to rape occurred in these circumstances frequently, I will sentence you on the basis that the jury found it happened more than once.

[27]	However, I make one thing clear. In her evidence, and under the umbrella of this charge, Ms W linked one allegation of non-consensual sex with the incident which is the subject of charge 17 where you held a pillow over her face. I told the jury that it could not count that incident of sexual intercourse for the purposes of charge 11 unless it was unanimous that the incident amounted to rape. Given that the jury found you guilty on charge 17, I think it very likely they were agreed that the sexual intercourse afterwards amounted to rape. But I cannot be sure. I will not count it for the purpose of sentencing.

[28]	Charge 12, threatening to kill, is also a representative charge. Ms W’s evidence was that you frequently threatened to kill her. It was a part of your exercising control over her, and she took you seriously and was scared. The jury found the charge proved and, given the overall context of Ms W’s evidence, I am satisfied the jury found it occurred more than once. I will sentence you on that basis, but not on the basis that you intended to carry out your threats.

[29]	Charges 13 and 14, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, relate to the incident where you caused grievous bodily harm to Ms W’s genitalia with a knife and with nail clippers. This was part of your obsession with virginity. Charge 15, rape, is part of this incident.

[30]	You stripped Ms W’s lower clothes off, berating her for not being a virgin. She was curled up, asking you to stop. She, recognising that she could not overpower you, did not physically resist. You then took a medium-sized kitchen knife and cut the bottom of her vagina, telling her that if she let you do it she would be your “virgin again, you won’t be a whore anymore”. You then took large nail clippers and sliced some flesh away from Ms W’s lower vagina, in the same place that you had wounded with the kitchen knife. You then had sex with Ms W, while she was curled up and distraught. That is the rape.

[31]	Charge 16, injuring with intent to injure, responds to Ms W’s evidence that you punched her in the face. You had an argument with Ms W, in which you accused her of cheating on you. She denied it, and you punched her hard in the right eye, giving her a large black eye.

[32]	Charge 17 is the charge responding to Ms W’s evidence that there was an occasion after an argument when you intentionally held a pillow over her face. You started by accusing her of being a whore, while the two of you were on your bed. The argument continued, and then you placed a pillow over her face. You held it down, hard, to the point that she could not breathe, lying on her and using the entire weight of your body. She struggled but could not dislodge you. She began to lose consciousness, and then you released her. You told her that she was lucky that you had not killed her. You then had sex with her.

[33]	Charge 18 is a similar charge but it relates to Ms W’s evidence that on one occasion you smothered her mouth and nose with your arm and hand. Again, it started with an argument. Your brother was staying in the house, and you were afraid that he might hear. You pinned Ms W against the wall with one arm and put your other hand over her nose and mouth, cutting off her breathing. Again, it was prolonged. After

some time, you released her, and she slumped to the floor. You immediately had sex with her.

[34]	Charge 19, threatening to kill, goes back to the charge 17 allegation relating to the pillow. Ms W gave evidence that when you had the pillow over her face and the whole force of your body was holding the pillow down, you told her you were going to kill her. Ms W said this got to the point where she thought she was going to die and she did not seriously expect you to stop.

[35]	Charge 20 relates also to a charge of threatening to kill. It goes back to charge
18. Ms W said that during the time you were smothering her you whispered in her ear, “you’re, you’re gonna fuckin’ die, bitch”.

[36]	I will apply the guideline judgment for this kind of offending, R v AM.4 I adopt charge 15, the charge of rape following your injuring of her vagina, as the lead charge. Separating this charge from charges 13 and 14 would be artificial and I will consider them together. I consider that this offending is extensive and violent, with the violence especially as an aggravating factor. The violence, although appalling, is not of a degree exceptional among band 4 cases.5 Band 4 also involves multiple offending over a period of time. I consider an appropriate starting point for your sexual offending against Ms W is 15 years’ imprisonment. For the remaining charges of threats and violence, having regard to totality, I would add two years, resulting in an overall starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment.

HS

[37]	I now come to HS. The jury found you guilty on charge 22, a representative charge of rape, charge 24, indecent assault, charge 25, rape, charge 27, rape, and charge 28, a representative charge of indecent assault.

[38]	The charges cover a date range of 1 April 2010 to 6 January 2013.

4	R v AM (CA27/2009)[2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750.
5	In comparison to, for example, R v N (CA88/05), 23 November 2005 or R v Koroheke CA189/01, 28 November 2001.

[39]	You and Ms S were married on 11 February 2011. In short succession, you had two children with her. Ms S’s evidence, similar to that of Ms W, was that you demanded constant sex, would not take ‘no’ for an answer, and would use techniques such as sleep deprivation to get your way.

[40]	The representative charge of rape was in that context. I am satisfied the jury found that rape in these circumstances occurred more than once. I will sentence on that basis.

[41]	I should add that when I use the word “satisfied” in these sentencing notes, I mean that I am sure – that is to say, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

[42]	Charge 24 relates to a visit to your family in Gisborne. Ms S said that you intentionally ejaculated on her and she did not consent to that. She was asleep, and woke up to you having ejaculated on her face.

[43]	The charge 25 rape conviction relates to an incident at Rosier Road. Ms S said she was sleep deprived because of the births of the children. You came in late and began having sex with her, ignoring her protests. You claimed not to remember the incident afterwards.

[44]	The charge 27 rape conviction also refers to a visit to your family at Gisborne shortly after the birth of your first child. Ms S had been told by the doctor to wait at least six weeks before having sexual intercourse, and this occurred when the baby was only five weeks old. You demanded sexual intercourse, telling her that “I need it, I want it, you should be ready by now”. Your family was directly outside of the room at the time. Ms S did not feel like she could refuse you. You had sexual intercourse. It was very painful for Ms S, to the extent that she was reduced to tears.

[45]	The charge 28 indecent assault conviction is a representative charge and is based on Ms S’s evidence that on multiple occasions you would ejaculate on her without her consent. Given Ms S’s evidence, I find the jury must have found that this type of indecent assault occurred more than once. I will assess sentence on that basis.

[46]	I take charge 27 as the lead offence. In terms of the overall offending there exist many of the factors present in your offending against Ms W. But absent is the serious violence using the knife and the nail clippers. I therefore place your offending against Ms S towards the top of band 3 of R v AM. I adopt a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment.

SR

[47]	I come now to the convictions in relation to SR. They are charge 31, threatening to kill, charge 32, a representative charge of rape, charge 33, threatening to kill, charge 34, a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, being forced oral sex, (maximum penalty, 20 years’ imprisonment), and charge 35, threatening to kill.

[48]	The charges cover a date range of 5 November 2013 to 24 February 2014.

[49]	Ms R grew up in foster care and experienced sexual abuse as a child. You told her that the abuse was her fault and that she must have deliberately seduced the persons who had abused her. You also told her that there was video footage of this prior abuse online and that she deserved it. This demeaning treatment was an aspect of controlling her in ways which made her vulnerable to your sexual offending. Ms R moved from Adelaide to live with you in Ruakaka. She was extremely isolated.

[50]	Ms R gave evidence of a pattern of behaviour where you were controlling, manipulative and constantly requiring sex. Ms R’s evidence was that part of your controlling behaviour consisted of making threats to kill her. Ms R said this happened more than once, hence charge 31 being a representative charge.

[51]	For charge 32, Ms R gave evidence that as part of your constant demands for sex you got her to the point where she could no longer resist and that the sex which followed was not consensual. By its verdict, the jury accepted Ms R’s evidence and accepted that on at least one occasion you did not believe on reasonable grounds that Ms R was consenting to sexual intercourse. I find that, given the nature of Ms R’s evidence, the jury must have found it occurred more than once.

[52]	Charge 33 relates to an incident after the two of you had found out that Ms R was pregnant. Ms R states that she did not want to have children, but that you refused to use a condom during sexual intercourse because you claimed to have an allergy to latex. Ms R said that you threatened to kill her if she did anything to terminate the pregnancy. You left a large knife under the pillow of your bed, knowing she would find it when making the bed. You also made specific threats about how you would kill her – by cutting her throat and throwing her over the cliff at the back of the property where you were living. You told her that no-one cared whether she lived or died.

[53]	Charge 34 is a representative charge and is similar to charge 32. It relates to Ms R’s evidence that your constant demands for sex extended also to demands that she perform oral sex on you. Ms R states that you forced her to perform oral sex and told her that you never washed your penis with soap, which disgusted her.

[54]	Charge 35 relates to the aftermath of the incident where Ms R says she had had a row with [T] and that you became very upset with her as a result. Ms R’s evidence was that when you got back to your house, Ms R said something about running a bath and you told her that if she did that you would drown her.

[55]	The lead charge involving offending against Ms R is charge 32, being a representative charge of rape.

[56]	I find that your sexual offending against Ms R falls within band 2 of R v AM. I would adopt a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment. I would add one year, allowing for totality, for the threatenings to kill. A total starting point of 12 years.

EH

[57]	I now come to the jury’s findings of guilty on charges in respect of EH.

[58]	The charges were charge 36, rape, charge 37, rape, charge 38, rape, charge 39, a representative charge of rape, charge 40, a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, charge 41, a charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, charge 43, a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and charge 44, a representative charge of male assaults female.

[59]	The charges cover a date range of 22 March 2014 to 19 January 2015.

[60]	Charge 36 relates to an incident which Ms H said was the first time she did not want to have sex with you. The rape occurred on a morning in which you wanted to have sex and because Ms H had not had a shower the previous night and was feeling ‘gross’ she said she did not want to have sex. However, you rolled her over so she was facing the wall and, despite her trying to fight and get away, you had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The jury concluded you did not believe on reasonable grounds that you had her consent on that occasion.

[61]	Charge 37 relates to an incident which occurred after Ms H found out she was pregnant. Her evidence was that she was utterly distraught when she found out she was pregnant; she was hysterical. She said you were not happy with her and your mood was made worse when you got a speeding ticket on the way home. Ms H said that despite the condition she was in, you insisted on having sex once you got home. Ms H’s evidence was that she did not consent to that sexual intercourse and the jury found that you did not believe on reasonable grounds that she was consenting.

[62]	Charge 38 is also a charge of rape. Ms H gave evidence that after the birth of her son you insisted on having sex with her in the shower despite her still having stitches resulting from the birth. Ms H’s account was that she did not want to have sex but you went ahead anyway, tearing her stitches in the process.

[63]	Charge 39 is a representative charge of rape and arises from Ms H’s evidence of the nature of your ongoing relationship and the number of times that she gave in to having sex because you were badgering her or because she could not bear the cost of resisting your demands. Ms H’s evidence was that in your relationship sexual violation became a “routine”; that you would get your way using guilt, manipulation and stand-over tactics, and that you ignored regular refusals of consent. The jury, by its verdict, found proven that on at least one occasion you overbore Ms H’s will that sexual intercourse was without Ms H’s consent and that you did not believe on reasonable grounds that she was consenting. Given the generic nature of Ms H’s evidence, I approach sentence on the basis the jury found the offending occurred more than once.

[64]	Charge 40 is a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and relates to Ms H’s description of unwanted anal sex. Ms H said that occasionally, after having raped her, you would go on to anally penetrate her. Again, I sentence you on the basis that this happened more than once, with the proviso that Ms H emphasised that this was occasional.

[65]	Charge 41 is a specific charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. Ms H said that on an occasion when she was heavily pregnant you grabbed her by the hair, forced her to her knees, forcing her head into your crotch, and that you forced her to perform oral sex on you.

[66]	Charge 43 is a representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. It relates to Ms H’s allegation that over the course of your relationship there were other times when you forced her to perform oral sex on you.

[67]	Finally, charge 44 is a representative charge of male assaults female. Ms H’s evidence was that although you never punched her, there were occasions where you slapped her face, pushed her around, pulled her hair and dragged her around.

[68]	Again, I take the sexual violence charges together to assess a starting point according to R v AM. I consider the most severe incident to be that that took place in the shower and led to the tearing of her stitches. I consider the key aggravating factors are the frequency of offending, the harm done to Ms H, and the way in which your rapes became a routine. I consider this analogous to the cases of R v N (CA88/02) and R v Gordon.6 While each individual incident of rape would (with the exception of the shower rape) fall within band 1, together they come to the lower end of band 4. I adopt a starting point of 15 years. For totality, I will not increase the starting point to account for the male assaults female incidents.

Starting points

[69]	I have assessed the starting points as follows:

6	R v N (CA88/05), 23 November 2005; R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145.

(a)	For Ms T, five years.

(b)	For Ms W, 17 years.

(c)	For Ms S, 13 years.

(d)	For Ms R, 12 years.

(e)	For Ms H, 15 years.

[70]	Those starting points add up to 62 years’ imprisonment. However, what I have to do is adopt an overall starting point which is appropriate for your overall culpability in your offending against these five women. In other words, I have to adopt an overall starting point that the law regards as reflecting the totality of your offending. I am quite sure that your victims would regard the 62 years total as being appropriate, but the law does not permit that to be your overall starting point. The law requires me to make a very substantial reduction.

[71]	The Crown submits that I should adopt an overall starting point in the vicinity of 20 to 23 years’ imprisonment. Mr McKean submits the starting point should be  18 or 19 years’ imprisonment.

[72]	I have considered your overall sexual offending in the light of R v AM. It falls within the upper range of band 4. I would adopt a starting point, because of totality, of 19 years’ imprisonment. To take account of the violent offending, again because of totality, I would add two years. The overall starting point is 21 years.7

Personal factors

[73]	Mr McKean submits that you should be given credit for the role that your mental health difficulties and your drug-taking played in at least some of your offending. I have read carefully the references to your history of mental health problems, particularly as set out in detail in Dr Duggal’s report.

7	R v Apperley [2019] NZHC 1276, R v Gage [2013] NZHC 2053, and R v Te Huia [2016] NZHC 1045.

[74]	I accept that, in particular, your narcissistic personality traits were a factor in your offending. Of course, those traits also increase the risk to the community of you reoffending in the future. I will reduce the starting point by two years to take account of your personal factors going to mitigation of culpability, particularly your history of mental health problems.

[75]	The end sentence if a finite sentence is imposed is 19 years.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[76]	The Crown submits I should impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent of any finite sentence I impose. Mr McKean accepts that a minimum period of imprisonment is inevitable in your case.

[77]	Normally, for serious offending, a prisoner is eligible to be considered for parole having served one-third of his sentence. A Judge may impose a minimum period of imprisonment longer than that if they are satisfied that the period is insufficient to address the offending. In my view, all of the statutory factors are present in your case. There is a need to hold you accountable for the harm you have done to your victims and the community. This morning we have heard victim impact statements from all of the complainants. The harm that you did is palpable.  There is a need to denounce your conduct, to deter you from further offending and, importantly, to protect the community from you. If I sentence you to a finite term of imprisonment, I will also impose a minimum period of imprisonment equal to one-half of the finite sentence.

Preventive Detention

[78]	The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members. I am satisfied that you have a pattern of serious offending against the five complainants who were all your domestic partners. You have children with all of them. The nature and extent of your offending against the complainants has caused serious harm to the community.

[79]	I have reports from two health assessors, Dr Duggal and Mr van Rensburg, which tell me that you are at a high risk of reoffending if you were to be released now, and you are at real risk of committing serious offences in the future. Indeed, Mr van Rensburg’s view is that you meet all the criteria for a sentence of preventive detention. Dr Duggal is more circumspect. He identifies risk factors but says it is not possible to predict with certainty the level of your risk of sexual recidivism into the distant future.

[80]	I also have an opinion from Ms Isaacson commissioned by Mr McKean. The report reviews the health assessment reports of Dr Duggal and Mr van Rensburg. I found it useful.

[81]	I accept Dr Duggal’s opinion that you have significant antisocial, narcissistic and psychopathic traits. I accept that you are at a high risk of reoffending currently and that this risk will continue into the future. This is particularly so due to your current refusal to accept responsibility for your actions.

[82]	I have, however, decided not to sentence you to preventive detention. These are my reasons:

(a)	This is the first time you have been sentenced to prison. You have never had the opportunity, over a lengthy period of time, to seek and accept rehabilitative treatment. You have never had the opportunity to address the causes of your offending. You have, in the past, recognised that criminal offending is destructive of your preferred lifestyle and you have made changes.

(b)	You do not, in my view, pose a risk to the general community. Your next victim, if there is to be one, would be another domestic partner. I am satisfied that the risk of you finding a next victim can be adequately mitigated, as I will come to.

(c)	The principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society applies in your case. You are 38 years old. The sentence I will impose is a lengthy one. You will not

be eligible to apply for parole for nine-and-a-half years. When you do apply for parole, the Parole Board will assess you for risk to the community. If you have not shown that you have addressed the causes of your offending then you will not get parole. Even if you are granted parole, it is open for the Department of Corrections to apply for an extended supervision order which can operate for up to 10 years. I cannot predict whether such an order would be applied for, but I do note that it could provide appropriate supervision for someone whose risk centres on his domestic partner.

Sentence

[83]	I sentence you to 19 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of nine years and six months.

[84]	The sentences to be attached to the 33 charges of which you have been convicted, all of which will be served concurrently with each other, are as follows:

•	Threatens to kill

Charges 2, 12, 19, 20, 31, 33, 35 – three years’ imprisonment on each charge

•	Male assaults female

Charges 17, 18, 44 – one year’s imprisonment on each charge

•	Injuring with intent to injure

Charges 4 and 16 – one year and six months’ imprisonment on each charge

•	Indecent assault

Charges 6, 24, 28 – three years’ imprisonment on each charge

•	Assault with a weapon

Charge 9 – one year’s imprisonment

•	Sexual violation by rape

Charges 10, 11, 15, 22, 25, 27, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39 – 19 years’ imprisonment on each charge

•	Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Charges 13 and 14 – five years’ imprisonment on each charge

•	Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection

Charges 34, 40, 41, 43 – 19 years’ imprisonment on each charge

[85]	As I have said, all sentences to be served concurrently.

[86]	Mr Bruce, you also heard the Crown Solicitor ask me to impose protection orders in respect of each of the five complainants. That was not a request that had been notified to me prior this hearing. I took the view that the criterion of necessity is not present because you do not have a record post the relationships of trying to make contact. Of course, if you were to do so in the future I have no doubt that protection orders would be made.

[87]	You can stand down.

Brewer J