R v Mikus CA296/04

In the case of R v Mikus CA296/04, the appellant, Jules Gyula Mikus, appealed against a six-year imprisonment sentence imposed after his conviction on two counts of rape. The offences, which occurred in February 1976, involved the same victim, a 20-year-old woman who was seeking board. The appellant, previously unknown to her, answered her advertisement for board and an arrangement was made for the sharing of household expenses and the cooking of meals. Within days, the appellant attacked her. The victim suffered two rapes on successive days and subsequently left the house without reporting the incidents to the police. The offences came to light in 2003 when the victim returned to New Zealand and disclosed the incidents to the police.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, Williams J, considering the appellant's age and health at the time of sentencing. The court had to decide if the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the mitigating factor of the appellant's age, and whether adequate weight was given to the impact of imprisonment on an elderly man. The court also considered the sentencing regime relevant to the period of offending and the appropriate term of imprisonment for the two rapes.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge correctly examined the sentencing regime relevant to the period of offending and identified aggravating factors, insufficient weight was given to the mitigating factor of the appellant's age. The Court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive by the extent of one year. The appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence of five years imprisonment was quashed, with a sentence of four years imprisonment imposed. The sentence of six years imprisonment was also quashed, and a sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed. Both sentences were to be served concurrently.