R v Liaki - [2013] NZHC 2087

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 TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-087-857 [2013] NZHC 2087

THE QUEEN

v

DIAMOND KAINO LIAKI

Hearing: 16 August 2013

Appearances:

R W Jenson for the Crown
G Tomlinson for Mr Liaki

Sentencing:

16 August 2013

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors:
Mr R W Jenson, Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Mr G Tomlinson, Gowing & Co. Ltd, Solicitors, Whakatane

R v LIAKI [2013] NZHC 2087 [16 August 2013]

[1] Mr Liaki, you may remain seated while I explain the sentence and then I will come to impose the formal sentence and you will need to stand.

[2] I do want to tell you at the outset that I am going to impose on you a sentence of imprisonment of 9 years but there will be no minimum period of imprisonment.

[3] Having been found guilty by a jury you appear for sentence for 17 offences of sexual offending against three young girls. I will refer to them as A, L and E.

[4] The offences against A occurred between 9 and 10 years ago; the offences against L between 33 and 34 years ago; and the offences against E between 36 and
43 years ago. A, L and E are related to you. In effect, you offended against three generations of relatives of yours.

Victim A

[5] The offences against A occurred between January 2003 and June 2004. A was aged between 8 and 9 years. You were aged between 50 and 51 years. On two occasions you sexually violated A by penetrating her genitalia with your fingers. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. On two occasions you induced A to do an indecent act by making her rub your genital area. The maximum penalty is
10 years imprisonment. There was a further offence of indecent assault by forcing your tongue into A’s mouth. This also has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Victim L

[6] There were offences against L between June 1979 and August 1980. She was aged between 6 and 7 years. You were aged between 26 and 28 years. There were four representative charges of different types of sexual offending. I am satisfied from the evidence, and the verdicts, that the jury will have concluded that there was repeated offending over the period. There were offences of indecent assault by touching L’s genital area both under and over her clothing; indecent assault by touching her genital area while piggy-backing her; inducing her to do an indecent act by making her rub your genital area; and doing an indecent act on her by seating her

on your lap while you were clothed but with an erect penis. These offences have a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Victim E

[7] There were eight representative charges of offending against E between 1970 and 1977. When you take into account the…

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 Liaki

Details

AGLC: R v Liaki [2013] NZHC 2087
Case: [2013] NZHC 2087
Decision Date: 16 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the case of R v Liaki was heard for sentencing on 16 August 2013. Diamond Kainoa Liaki was found guilty of 17 offences of sexual offending against three young girls, A, L, and E. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Liaki, considering the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Liaki's personal circumstances. The legal issues included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the uplift for other offences, and any adjustments for personal circumstances.

The court determined that the starting point for the lead offences of sexual violation against A should be 5 years imprisonment, acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, the degree of planning, the vulnerability of the victim, and the breach of trust. An additional 4 years were added for the offences against E and L and other offences against A, reflecting the long-term and repeated nature of the offending, especially against E. The court rejected submissions for any reduction in the sentence due to Liaki's age or his otherwise well-lived life, emphasising the profound impact of the offences on the victims. The court also decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment.

The final sentence imposed was imprisonment for 9 years for the most serious offences, with additional sentences for other offences totalling 16 years. Liaki was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years on the most serious charges, and additional sentences totalling 16 years for the remaining charges.

Orders