R v Katipa - [2017] NZHC 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-008811 [2017] NZHC 2811

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM KATIPA

Hearing: 16 November 2017

Counsel:

NE Walker and ET Fletcher for Crown
AG Speed for Defendant

Judgment:

16 November 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
A G Speed, Auckland

R v KATIPA [2017] NZHC 2811 [16 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Katipa, you appear for sentence following trial in relation to a series of sexual offences against three victims: F, K and T. The charges are:

(a) Five of sexual violation, and one of attempted sexual violation; (b) Four of indecent assault;
(c) Three of threatening to kill; and

(d) A final charge of assault with intent to injure.

[2] The primary issue is whether I should impose a concurrent sentence of preventive detention; “concurrent” because you are already serving preventive detention for unrelated sexual offending. More about that shortly.

[3] Your offences were committed in prison—and while you were subject to preventive detention. All arose in the context of a two-man cell.

Facts

[4] On 6 October 2006 F was placed in your cell at Waikeria Prison. You were then 40. He was 27. Nothing happened the first night, albeit the two of you discussed your respective sexual abuse as children. You asked F what he had done to his abuser. He said he had done nothing. You told F your family had disposed of your abuser.

[5] After lock-down the next night, you made F perform a workout with you in nothing but his boxer shorts. He struggled to keep up. You later kissed F to his neck and played with his penis. You then made F penetrate your anus with his penis. You told F you wanted him to ejaculate inside you. He pretended he had. When you realised he had not, you made him penetrate you again until he did. He was terrified. He said he ejaculated only through imagining his girlfriend.

[6] Later the same evening, you penetrated F’s anus with your penis. Your offending was interrupted by a guard, who noticed the peep-hole to your cell had been covered with toilet paper. He told you to remove it. F tried to raise help by writing a note which he placed under the door. It was later recovered by Police.

[7] The next day you threatened to kill F if he told anyone about what you had done. He bravely ignored you. He made a prompt complaint after sobbing uncontrollably to a prison officer. Police investigated. However, no charges were laid. Police believed there was inadequate evidence to sustain conviction.

[8] Fast-forward to 20 September 2015 and Auckland South Correctional Facility. You were still a prisoner—and nine years older. K was placed in your cell. He was 24. You were then 49. As with F, things between you and K were initially unremarkable. You were kind to him. He formed a positive impression of…

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 Katipa

Details

AGLC: R v Katipa [2017] NZHC 2811
Case: [2017] NZHC 2811
Decision Date: 16 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Katipa involved the sentencing of William Katipa for a series of sexual offences committed against three victims in prison. The victims were F, K, and T, and Katipa faced charges including sexual violation, attempted sexual violation, indecent assault, threatening to kill, and assault with intent to injure. The court was required to decide whether Katipa should receive a concurrent sentence of preventive detention, given that he was already serving preventive detention for unrelated sexual offending. The court found that Katipa's offences exhibited several aggravating factors, including premeditation, use of violence, targeting vulnerable victims, the significant scale and intrusive nature of the offending, the harm caused to the victims, and Katipa's history of sexual and violent offending. The court determined that a concurrent sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the public, given Katipa's high risk of re-offending and the gravity of his offending. Katipa was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of 15 years on charges of sexual violation and indecent assault, and a term of two years' imprisonment on charges of threatening to kill and assault with intent to injure. All sentences were to run concurrently with each other and with Katipa's existing sentence of preventive detention.

Orders