R v Lata

Case [2018] NZHC 707 17 April 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANT, A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-092-3680

[2018] NZHC 707

THE QUEEN

v

KASMEER LATA

Hearing: 17 April 2018

Appearances:

N E Walker and K S Li for the Crown KAN Trotter for the Defendant

Sentence:

17 April 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF MUIR J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Kayes, Fletcher Walker, Manukau KAN Trotter, Barrister, Auckland

R v LATA [2018] NZHC 707 [17 April 2018]

[1] The defendant, Ms Kasmeer Lata, has pleaded guilty to and is now to be sentenced in respect of the following charges:

Offence Date of offence Section / Act Maximum penalty

Dealing in Slaves (representative)
Between 1 Feb 2015–

30 Nov 2016

s 98(1)(i)

Crimes Act 1961

14 years’

imprisonment

Dealing in a person under 18 for sexual exploitation (representative) (x2)
Between 1 Feb 2015–

30 Nov 2016

s 98AA(1)(a)(i)

Crimes Act 1961

14 years’

imprisonment

Receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by person under 18 years
Between 1 Feb 2015–

30 Nov 2016
ss 21 and 23 Prostitution Reform Act 2003
7 years’

imprisonment

Summary of Facts

[2] The defendant is the mother of the complainant. The complainant herself was born in Fiji. In 2014 the defendant moved to New Zealand with the complainant and one of her younger siblings. They entered on now expired visitors’ visas. After initially staying with the defendant’s mother in Whangarei they moved to Auckland where they rented various properties in Manurewa, Papatoetoe and Takanini.

[3] From the time of her arrival in Auckland the defendant worked as a prostitute. After a period, she asked the complainant, her daughter, to do likewise to help pay for food and to earn enough money, she said, to start a business. The complainant initially refused, but was told the family would starve if she did not, and she would only have to do it for a month or so. The defendant placed various advertisements for the complainant’s sexual services on websites and in the New Zealand Herald, and arranged for her to be photographed and videoed in various stages of undress and in provocative poses. She was advertised as being 18 years of age or over. Some of these advertisements were allegedly placed with the assistance of the defendant’s partner, who has pleaded not guilty to these charges and is awaiting trial. I will make some brief observations at the conclusion of this judgment in relation to the importance of suppression of all details relating to the defendant’s partner.

[4] The defendant arranged for the complainant to see her first, if I may call him this, ‘client’ on her 15th birthday at their home. She dressed her, put her makeup on and coached her on how to have sex. Her first ‘client’ was a man in his 50’s, who engaged in…

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 Lata

Details

AGLC: R v Lata [2018] NZHC 707
Case: [2018] NZHC 707
Decision Date: 17 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Ms Kasmeer Lata, has pleaded guilty to charges of dealing in slaves, dealing in a person under 18 for sexual exploitation, and receiving earnings from commercial sexual services provided by a person under 18 years. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court also considered the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty plea and whether a minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.

The court found that the offending was of a high level of premeditation and planning, and involved the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable 15-16-year-old complainant over a period of 18 months. The court considered the breach of trust, the severity of the exploitation, and the harm caused to the complainant. The court also considered the defendant's lack of remorse at the time of the pre-sentence report, although it took into account the defendant's expression of remorse in a letter provided to the court. The court allowed a small discount for the defendant's lack of prior convictions and the extent to which prostitution was "normalised" in the defendant's own upbringing. The court allowed a 25% discount for the defendant's guilty plea, as it had relieved the complainant of the additional stress of trial. The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and five months to adequately denounce the defendant's conduct and to deter other offenders. The court sentenced the defendant to six years and 11 months' imprisonment for the lead charge, to be served concurrently with two years and 11 months' imprisonment for the Prostitution Reform Act charge. The court lifted the prior order suppressing the defendant's name, as the complainant wished her mother's name to be made public. The court suppressed all details of the defendant's co-offender to protect his fair trial rights.

Orders