R v Muchirahondo - [2025] NZHC 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-009-001538

[2025] NZHC 559

THE KING

v

JOHN HOPE MUCHIRAHONDO

Hearing: 14 March 2025

Appearances:

C J Boshier and W S Taffs for Crown

A M S Williams, K J Basire, H C Coutts and K N Stitely for Defendant

Judgment:

14 March 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 March 2025 at pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

R v MUCHIRAHONDO [2025] NZHC 559 [14 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] John Hope Muchirahondo at the age of 39 you appear for sentence on 17 charges of serious sexual offending committed over 10 years against nine women. The jury delivered their verdicts on 30 September last year, after several days of deliberation in your ten-week trial.

[2] You were convicted of 11 counts of sexual violation by rape1 and six counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.2 You were also convicted of failing to provide a PIN number to access your cell phone. Police later found graphic images on that phone (and others), which you had recorded, including as trophies, essentially, of some of those sexual assaults.3

[3] You were acquitted of eight further charges of rape or unlawful sexual connection.4 I discharged the jury from giving a verdict on five further charges of sexual violation, including four alleging rape of four other young women, on which the jury were unable to agree.

[4] As you are aware, the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention in your case. Your counsel opposes this and he argues, as you have heard, for a finite sentence at a level considerably below that sought by the Crown.

[5] The availability of preventive detention means I approach sentencing today in two stages:

(a)First, I must assess the finite sentence appropriate to reflect your offending in totality, and any corresponding minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) should I sentence you to a finite term.

(b)Then, I will determine whether you should be subject to preventive detention, and if so the term of the MPI under that sentence.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) and 128B; maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B; maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
3      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178; maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
4      One charge was dismissed pursuant to s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 during trial; the jury acquitted on seven other charges.

[6] I begin first, by outlining your offending. Although you are familiar with the evidence that the jury heard, sentencing is a public process and it is necessary to do so.

[7]There are nine victims; survivors of your offending.

Ms A

[8] Your earliest offending occurred against the youngest of the complainants, Ms A. She was 15 years old when she met you; you then aged about 25, in 2011.

[9] At that time Ms A…

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 Muchirahondo

Details

AGLC: R v Muchirahondo [2025] NZHC 559
Case: [2025] NZHC 559
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Hope Muchirahondo has been convicted by a jury of 11 charges of rape and six charges of unlawful sexual connection against nine women over a period of 10 years. The Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention, which would be an indeterminate sentence. The defence argued for a finite sentence considerably below that sought by the Crown. The Court began by determining the appropriate finite sentence. The starting point was 20 years’ imprisonment, at the top of the most serious band for sexual violation. The Court increased the starting point to 23 years’ imprisonment to reflect the totality of the offending. There were no mitigating factors. The Court imposed an MPI of 10 years. The Court then considered whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The Court was not satisfied the risk of re-offending was so high that it warranted an indeterminate sentence. The combination of the lengthy finite sentence and the availability of an Extended Supervision Order would sufficiently protect the public. The Court sentenced Muchirahondo to 23 years’ imprisonment with an MPI of 10 years. The Court did not impose preventive detention.

Orders