R v Kurei - [2015] NZHC 2385

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-063-3579

CRI-2015-063-0855 [2015] NZHC 2385

THE QUEEN

v

LYNNE PAUL KUREI

Charges:
Plea:

Indecent act on a child under 12; Indecent assault; Sexual

violation by rape (4); Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (3); Rape (2)

Guilty

Counsel:

A J Gordon for Crown
M J Hine for Prisoner

Sentenced:

1 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Crown
Families Matter Law Practice (Rotorua) for Prisoner

R v KUREI [2015] NZHC 2385 [1 October 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Kurei, you pleaded guilty on 4 August 2015 to 11 sexual offences committed against three children.

The facts

[2] In 1984 you raped E. She was five or six years old. You were 14. You were babysitting her. You lay on top of her, squashing her face with your chest. She had difficulty breathing. You moved up and down on top of her with your penis inside her vagina.

[3] On another occasion E was in the toilet. You went into the toilet and shut the door. You took her off the toilet, sat down on it and put her on top of you. You put your penis inside her and moved her up and down. She wanted to get off but you held her down. You told her not to tell her mum and dad.

[4] In 1999 you entered a relationship with your then partner. She lived with her

11 year old sister, L. One night, L was sleeping on a mattress in the lounge. You and your partner were sleeping on the couch. L woke up three times during the night to you putting your hand down her pants and touching her bottom.

[5] On another occasion, while L was on the mattress, you kissed her and felt her breasts over the top of her clothing.

[6] One night there was a party at the house. You were in your car with L. She was intoxicated. You kissed her and put your tongue into her mouth. You then drove to a different street. You grabbed her hand and forced her to touch your penis. You then took off her shorts and underwear and raped her. She cried out in pain and repeatedly asked you to stop. You refused. You only stopped when she told you she needed to go to the toilet.

[7] Between 2003 and 2009 you offended against A. She was the niece of your partner. She also lived in your partner’s home. She suffered, and suffers, from a congenital respiratory condition.

[8] Around A’s eighth birthday, you came into her room when she was in bed, removed her blankets and began rubbing her genitalia over her clothing with your palm and fingers. From…

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 Kurei

Details

AGLC: R v Kurei [2015] NZHC 2385
Case: [2015] NZHC 2385
Decision Date: 1 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, involved Lynne Paul Kurei, who was convicted on 11 sexual offences against three children. Kurei had pleaded guilty to the charges, which included rape, sexual violation, and indecent assault. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and Kurei's personal circumstances, including his previous convictions. The legal issues centered around the sentencing methodology, the determination of a finite sentence, and whether preventive detention was necessary to protect the public. The court considered the factors of planning, vulnerability of the victims, harm caused, breach of trust, and the scale of the offending. Kurei's previous convictions and his potential risk of reoffending were also evaluated. The court decided on a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and six months for the charges related to the most severe victims, and concurrent sentences for other charges. This decision aimed to balance the gravity of the offences with the need to protect the community from Kurei's ongoing risk of reoffending.

Orders