R v Kupa - [2014] NZHC 1415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-000694 [2014] NZHC 1415

THE QUEEN

v

TAITE HEMI KUPA

Hearing: 20 June 2014

Counsel:

NJ Dore and DB Stevens for the Crown
SK Ellis for the Defendant

Judgment:

20 June 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei.
SK Ellis, Whangarei.

R v KUPA [2014] NZHC 1415 [20 June 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kupa, you appear today for sentencing having been found guilty on 21 counts involving offending against young children. The counts on which you have been convicted are three rape counts, which carry a maximum term of 20 years’ imprisonment, six unlawful sexual connection counts which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, one attempted rape which carries a maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment, and one attempted unlawful sexual connection which carries a maximum term of 10 years’ imprisonment. These counts are what I will refer to as the sex charges. There are two victims of those charges.

[2] There is also a second group of charges which relate to different offending in terms of its nature and seriousness. These are nine counts of assault on a child and one count of assault on a female.

[3] The charges arose out of your position as an approved Child, Youth and Family caregiver. You were allowed to have up to six children, boys and girls, stay in your care. The children you received to live with you and your wife were children on temporary placement who were unable to stay with their own family.

Facts – assaults

[4] The period of offending covers a relatively short timeframe. The assault counts covered the period from 3 August 2011 to 1 February 2013, and the sex counts the period between 1 October 2012 to 13 February 2013. I will refer first to the assaults and then to the sex offending.

[5] There were eight victims of the assaults, two of whom are also the victims of the sex charges. The assault counts consisted of you kicking children in the bottom, or on one occasion to the upper leg, or tweaking or pulling their ears. Having heard the evidence it is my view that they were spontaneous reactions to particular events when the children were being naughty and you felt you needed to make some sort of disciplinary statement. There were other events referred to in the course of evidence including wetting a child’s bed and holding a child up but these were not the subject of charges, and I put them to one side for sentencing purposes.

[6] The kicks to the bottom were not severe in the sense that they did not cause injury or the make children fall over or hit other objects, save for one occasion of bruising to the leg of BT. The pulling of the ears also did not cause injury or any long term effects. My general perception, having heard the evidence, is that you were trying to do something which…

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 Kupa

Details

AGLC: R v Kupa [2014] NZHC 1415
Case: [2014] NZHC 1415
Decision Date: 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Taite Hemi Kupa was sentenced following his conviction on multiple counts of serious offences against children, including rape, unlawful sexual connections, and assault. The case involved two primary categories of offences: sexual offences against two children and assaults on multiple children, some of whom were also victims of the sexual offences. Kupa, who was a registered caregiver for children, abused his position of trust to commit these crimes.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offences, and imposing a minimum term of imprisonment for the most serious offences. The court had to balance the severity and nature of the offences against personal factors such as Kupa's previously good character and his cooperation during the trial.

The court, in its reasoning, first assessed the assault charges, which, while serious, were deemed less severe compared to the sexual offences. The court acknowledged that such assaults would not traditionally have warranted police intervention but noted the evolving societal standards on child discipline. A starting point of six months' imprisonment was determined for these charges, though this was adjusted in the final sentencing to reflect the totality principle. For the sexual offences, the court considered the scale, nature, and breach of trust involved, setting a starting point of 15 and a half years' imprisonment. After accounting for Kupa's good character and his cooperation during the trial, the final sentence was set at 14 years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of seven years and three months to adequately denounce the offences and deter future similar crimes.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a 14 years and six months' imprisonment sentence for the majority of the charges, with a concurrent one month imprisonment for the assault charges, and a minimum term of seven years and three months for the most serious offences.

Orders