escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Gary Nicholas

Gary Shane Ian Nicholas

Alias

.

Offences

Attacked and raped a 16 year old Aranui, Christchurch girl in a New Brighton park at night in June 2008
Also threatened to kill her and her boyfriend
Six previous convictions including assault, wilful damage, and disorderly behaviour

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1980

Current Location

Prison

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to nine years in March 2009
Reduced to eight years on appeal

Background
NZ Herald story here and here
Christchurch Court News story here and here

The Press (Christchurch), July 15th 2009
A second rapist has been given a lighter sentence by the Court of Appeal in what critics say is "alarming" and a "mathematical exercise".

Christchurch man Gary Shane Ian Nicholas, 29, had a nine-year prison sentence for raping a teenager last year reduced to eight years. The Court of Appeal judgment, released yesterday, found the original sentence handed down in March by Christchurch District Court judge Graeme Noble was "manifestly excessive".

Christchurch QC Nigel Hampton said Noble was a District Court judge with more than 20 years' experience and this was another case of the Court of Appeal "tweaking too much". The Court of Appeal worked on the principle of sentence parity, and if there was a "manifest" or "obvious disparity", a sentence should be reduced or increased to correspond, he said.

However, Court of Appeal judges were struggling to achieve what they thought was parity between sentences, with it becoming an "academic, mathematical exercise rather than what I believe sentencing is - a balancing of human factors, not mathematical factors", Hampton said. "A sentence has to be so much out of the range it has to be interfered with, and I just think they are reading down what manifest has historically meant in legal terms because of this mathematical approach to it.

"One would think the sentencing judge, who sees the people firsthand, who hears the victim firsthand and has the offender in front of him firsthand, often has a better view of circumstances than some judges rather more remotely up the chain - some of whom have very little trial experience." In the Nicholas case, Judge Noble started with a sentence of eight years for attacking a 16-year-old girl as she was walking with her boyfriend on a walkway near Anzac Dr, in New Brighton , at 1.55am last June.

Nicholas threatened the couple, then raped the girl while her boyfriend ran for help. During sentencing, the judge described the victim as "fearful", "anxious", "angry with herself, disgusted, sickened and concerned regarding her ongoing safety when on the street". He uplifted the eight-year starting point by three years for aggravating features including the use of physical violence; the threat to kill; the fact there were two offences and victim impact. He reduced that by two years for an early guilty plea.

However, the Court of Appeal judgment found that while the attack was "plainly a terrifying and violent incident", the uplift of three years from the starting sentence of eight years' imprisonment was "manifestly excessive", and a two- year uplift would have been proper.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the trend coming from the Court of Appeal decisions in reducing court sentences was "alarming". "There is no doubt the mood of New Zealanders - the public - has been such we want sentences that reflect the horrendousness of the crime." The Court of Appeal "destroyed" the confidence in judges when "undermining" sentences, he said.

"The signal that it sends to the community is totally wrong. The more alarming thing is the way the criminals and would-be criminals interpret that." Justice Minister Simon Power said he had confidence in the Court of Appeal and people were entitled to appeal.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top