R v Kohu - [2014] NZHC 134

ORDER MADE PROHIBITING PRE-RECORDED VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO BE RECORDED OR PLAYED BY MEDIA

SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THESE SENTENCING NOTES PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: SEE PARAGRAPHS [6]-[8]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY
CRI-2013-042-000585 [2014] NZHC 134

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK TAIRERE KOHU

Counsel:
J M Webber and S K O'Donoghue for Crown

A J D Bamford for Prisoner

Sentence:

14 February 2014

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Kohu, this morning I am sentencing you on the 16 charges that the jury found you guilty of in December last year.

[2] You were found guilty of:

(1) six charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;

(2) three charges of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend; (3) two charges of assault with a weapon;
(4) three charges of male assaults female;

R v KOHU [2014] NZHC 134 [14 February 2014]

(5) one charge of compelling an indecent act with an animal; and

(6) one charge of breaching a protection order.

[3] The Crown has recommended that I sentence you to prison between 16 to 18 years, with a minimum non-parole period of not less than half the period of imprisonment which I impose. Your counsel, Mr Bamford, has urged me to impose a more lenient sentence of between 14 to 15 years’ imprisonment. Part of Mr Bamford’s submission is based on the view that your rehabilitation prospects are high and that you have no wish to resume contact with your former partner. It will be clear to you and from the submissions of counsel that I will be sentencing you to prison for a long time. The only issue is how long.

[4] In sentencing you, I shall:

(1) explain your offending;

(2)       explain the impact of your offending upon your victim; (3)    outline your personal circumstances;
(4)       explain the principles I will apply when sentencing you; (5)   explain the starting point of your sentence;
(6)       decide what if any adjustments can be made to your starting point; (7)         explain your end sentence; and
(8)       set the minimum period of imprisonment.

Your offending

[5] Your offending for which I am about to sentence you commenced in early

1997 and culminated in four offences in March 2013. I shall describe your offending by reference to the places and times when your offending occurred.

[6] [Suppressed] [7] [Suppressed] [8] [Suppressed]
The impact of your offending

[9] It was very clear from her evidence that your offending has had a profound impact upon your former partner. Her victim impact statement left no room for doubting the devastating effect of your offending upon her life. She is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological conditions as a result of the persistent way you abused and tormented her.

[10] Your offending was grossly abusive, degrading and inhumane. Your offending is amongst the worst that I have had to consider in 35 years as a…

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 Kohu

Details

AGLC: R v Kohu [2014] NZHC 134
Case: [2014] NZHC 134
Decision Date: 14 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, presided over by Collins J, delivered a judgment in the case of The Queen v Patrick Tairere Kohu. The defendant, Kohu, was found guilty on sixteen charges, including sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend, assault with a weapon, male assaults female, compelling an indecent act with an animal, and breaching a protection order. The Crown recommended a prison sentence of 16 to 18 years, with a minimum non-parole period of at least half the imprisonment imposed. Kohu's counsel argued for a more lenient sentence of 14 to 15 years, citing the defendant's high rehabilitation prospects and lack of intent to resume contact with his former partner. The court determined that Kohu would receive a lengthy prison sentence, with the primary issue being the length of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Kohu, considering the gravity of his offences and his lack of remorse. The court had to determine the starting point for the sentence, any adjustments that needed to be made, and the minimum period of imprisonment. The court had to balance the principles of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, protection of the community, and the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. The court also had to consider the impact of Kohu's offending on his victim, his personal circumstances, and his previous convictions. The court needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the harm caused and the degree of Kohu's responsibility for his offending.

Collins J outlined the principles governing the sentence, which included holding Kohu accountable for the harm caused, providing for the interests of the victim, denouncing his conduct, deterring others from similar behaviour, protecting the community, and imposing the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances. The court treated the sexual violation offences as the lead offences, given their depravity and humiliating nature. The court assessed the gravity of Kohu's offending and imposed a starting point of 14 years' imprisonment. The court increased the starting point by two years to reflect the totality of the offending and the gravity of Kohu's other offences. The court found no mitigating factors and imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years. The final sentence was 16 years' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for various charges, totalling 16 years' imprisonment with an eight-year minimum non-parole period.

Orders