R v Joe

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Joe was heard on 10 May 2013. The defendant, Kitiona Tere Joe, pleaded guilty to four charges of sexual offending against two complainants, who were his nephews. The charges included sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and doing indecent acts on the complainants when they were under the age of 12 and between 12 and 16. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the principles and purposes of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The key issues were the starting point for the sentence, the personal factors relating to the defendant, and whether a minimum term of imprisonment should be imposed.

The court determined the starting point for the sentence by reference to the two charges of sexual violation, which were the most serious. The court found that the defendant's offending fit within band two of the sentencing bands set out in the Court of Appeal judgment in R v AM, due to the breach of trust, the harm done to the complainants, the scale of the offending, and the fact that it extended over a period of eight years. The court accepted the Crown's submission that the starting point should be between eight and ten years' imprisonment, and ultimately set the starting point at eight years and six months' imprisonment. The court considered various personal factors relating to the defendant, including his previous convictions for similar offending, his high risk of re-offending, and his physical condition. The court applied a reduction of six months on account of the defendant's physical state and the relative severity for him of imprisonment, bringing the adjusted starting point back to eight years' imprisonment. The court also considered the defendant's guilty pleas, and accepted the Crown's submission that a 20% discount was appropriate, resulting in a sentence of six years and five months' imprisonment. The court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and two months for the purposes of deterrence and to protect the community.

The court ordered that the defendant be given a three strikes warning under the three strikes legislation, as his offending against the second complainant occurred after the "three strikes" law came into effect. The defendant was warned that if he is convicted of any one or more serious violent offences other than murder committed after this warning, and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, he will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If he is convicted of murder committed after this warning, then he must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. The sentences for the charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection were set at six years and five months' imprisonment each, the sentence for the charge of doing an indecent act on a boy under 12 was set at three years' imprisonment, and the sentence for the charge of doing an indecent act on a boy aged between 12 and 16 was set at two years' imprisonment. All sentences were to be served concurrently, with an effective term of imprisonment of six years and five months, of which the defendant was to serve a minimum of three years and two months.