R v Arioka - [2015] NZHC 1521

NOTE: ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESSES/VICTIMS/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-055-2711 [2015] NZHC 1521

THE QUEEN

v

MARAMA ARIOKA

Charges:
Plea
Sentence:

Sexual violation by unlawful connection (5)

Indecent acts on children under 12 (6) Attempted sexual violation by rape (1)

Guilty

10 years 9 months

Counsel:

FJ Cuncannon and SL McKone for Crown
KA Stoikoff and HMS Cheeseman for defendant

Sentenced:

2 July 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF FAIRE J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Auckland

R v Arioka [2015] NZHC 1521 [2 July 2015]

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Background facts....................................................................................................[3]

Purposes and Principles of Sentencing (ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002) ..[9]

Sentencing Approach ........................................................................................... [11] Submissions for the Crown [12] Submissions for the defendant [13]

Starting point ..............................................................................................................
Relevant law [15]

Setting the starting point ............................................................................................
Aggravating factors relevant to the offending (s 9 of the Sentencing
Act 2002) [25] Analysis ................................................................................................................[29] Aggravating factors relevant to the offender........................................................[35]
Mitigating Factors (s 9(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002).............................................
Pre-Sentence Report [36] Remorse [41] Guilty plea [42]

Minimum period of imprisonment (s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002) ................[45] Result....................................................................................................................[51]

Introduction

[1] Mr Arioka, you appear for sentencing today on five charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, six charges of doing indecent acts on children under 12, and one charge of attempted sexual violation by rape. Your trial on these charges was set to begin on 28 April 2015. You pleaded guilty to these charges on the morning of your trial and I entered the convictions accordingly on the

same day. You also received a warning under the “three-strike” provisions of the

Sentencing Act 2002.

[2] The offences for which you will be sentenced today carry the following maximum penalties:

(a) Each offence of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection is in breach of s 128(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment;

(b)Each offence for doing indecent acts on children under 12 is in breach of s 132(3) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;

(c) The offence for attempted sexual violation by rape is in breach of s 129(1) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Background facts

[3] The agreed summary of facts outlines the following. Mr Arioka, since 2011 you were in a relationship with a woman, with whom you lived in Papakura. Your partner has a daughter from a previous relationship, who was eight at the time of the offending. You often took your partner’s daughter to Central Park in Papakura. There she played with other children and made friends with two of the complainants in this case, Complainant A, who was 11 years old at the time, and Complainant B, who was nine years old at the time. Complainant A is autistic and has been diagnosed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Arioka

Details

AGLC: R v Arioka [2015] NZHC 1521
Case: [2015] NZHC 1521
Decision Date: 2 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Arioka [2015] NZHC 1521 involved the sentencing of the defendant, Marama Arioka, who was convicted of multiple charges of sexual violation by unlawful connection, indecent acts on children under 12, and attempted sexual violation by rape. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002, including holding the offender accountable, providing for the interests of the victims, and promoting deterrence. The court also considered victim impact statements that highlighted the significant emotional harm suffered by the victims, particularly in light of their young age and pre-existing conditions.

The court evaluated the circumstances and seriousness of the offending to determine an appropriate starting point for sentencing. The Crown argued for a concurrent sentencing approach with a starting point of 12 to 13 years’ imprisonment, while the defence argued for a starting point of eight to nine years’ imprisonment. The court, after considering the totality of the offending and the relevant sentencing bands, determined that the offending fell within the lower end of band three, warranting a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.

Aggravating factors considered included the vulnerability of the victims, the premeditation involved, and the extent of psychological harm caused by the offending. Mitigating factors such as the offender's guilty plea and remorse were also considered, though the court found that true remorse was not demonstrated. The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 10 years and nine months’ imprisonment on the sexual violation charges, five years and four months on the attempted rape charge, and three years on the balance of the charges, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent to protect the community from further offending.

Orders