R v Nepia
[2025] NZHC 583
•20 March 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE
CRI 2023-069-165
[2025] NZHC 583
THE KING
v
CLINT NEPIA
Hearing: 20 March 2025 Appearances: A McConachy for the Crown
R Raukawa for the defendant
Judgment: 20 March 2025
JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J
Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch Solicitors, Rotorua Tui Law Ltd, Rotorua
R v NEPIA [2025] NZHC 583 [20 March 2025]
[1] Mr Nepia, you appear for sentence on charges of abduction for sexual connection,1 doing an indecent act on a young person,2 and sexual violation by rape.3 You pleaded guilty to these charges.
[2] Sentencing is a formal process that takes some time. That is because I must explain the reasons for the sentence I am to impose. You and all the people in Court, and any court that reviews the sentence, must know the basis upon which I have imposed the sentence.
[3] The key matter I have to decide today is whether to sentence you to preventive detention. That is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. You would be released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you no longer pose a risk to the community.
The offending
[4] I will first summarise the facts of your offending. I take these from the summary of facts, which you accept.
[5]You were 45 years’ old at the time of the offending.
[6] On 8 February 2023, at around 10.30 pm, the victim — a 14-year-old female who lived in Whakatāne — was reported missing.
[7] On the morning of 9 February 2023, you were driving your motor vehicle in Rotorua. You noticed the victim walking on the side of the road and stopped to speak with her. The victim got into your car and stayed with you while you went to work for the day. The victim spent the day sitting in your car while you were at your job site.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 208. Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 134(3). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3 Sections 128 and 128B. Maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment.
[8] After work, you went to work drinks. The victim stayed in your car. You had a box of Cody’s seven per cent bourbon alcohol. You provided the victim with two Cody’s drinks.
[9] You told the victim you were working in Taupō the following day (which was not true). You suggested the victim come with you and you get a hotel together in Taupō.
[10] The victim agreed to go with you to Taupō that night. You handed her an open can of Cody’s before you started the drive.
[11] On the way, the victim lost her motor skills and was incapable of holding her head up or controlling her limbs.
[12] During the drive, you stopped at an unknown location and told the victim to get out of the car. You got angry when she was unable to move. The victim told you that she could not get out. The victim only recalls being taken out of the car and placed back in but has no recollection of what happened while she was out of the car. From that moment on, the victim does not know what happened to her and her memory was blank. The victim suspected that you drugged her during the trip as she did not think she could have drunk enough to lose her memory. However, she does not know exactly what happened.
[13] At 4.40 pm, you and the victim arrived at the Taupō Top 10 Holiday Park. The victim remained in the car while you organised a unit. You carried the victim into the unit. You remained in the unit until 6.13 pm. The victim has no recollection of what occurred.
[14] While at the Holiday Park, you made multiple phone calls to your work colleagues. They told you to take the victim to hospital. You told your work colleagues that you had showered the victim and that she had performed oral sex on you during the drive to Taupō.
[15] You exchanged text messages with a work colleague. Your colleague, in his text, urged you to take the victim to hospital. He said, “She needs to detox with a nurse. Ur not a nurse.”
[16] At 6.13 pm, you and the victim left the Top 10 Holiday Park before returning at 6.57 pm. While leaving the Holiday Park, the victim was seen on CCTV. This showed that she was still in an intoxicated and unconscious state, with her head slumped in the front seat of the vehicle. After your return, footage shows you escorting the victim back towards the Holiday Park unit.
[17] At around 8.21 pm, CCTV footage shows you walking around the Holiday Park, searching the area for the victim. You stated later that she had run off.
[18] You left the Holiday Park in your vehicle and located the victim a few blocks down the road.
[19] The occupants of a neighbouring unit, who were concerned by the victim’s state and your actions, called the Police.
[20] At 8.45 pm, Police checked the unit but could not locate you or the victim. However, at 9.23 pm, you returned to the unit with the victim in your vehicle, and at 10.00 pm, Police arrived back at the unit.
[21] Just prior to the Police arriving, you cuddled the victim while she was naked from the waist down.
[22] When the Police arrived, the victim was highly intoxicated, barely conscious and unable to stand. She was also naked, apart from your jumper which she was wearing.
[23] A female personal care razor was located nearby and the victim’s genitalia was cleanly shaved.
[24] On 15 April 2023, during a phone call with your sister, she asked you whether you had sexual intercourse with the victim. You admitted that you did.
Victim impact
[25] You have heard the victim impact statement read this morning to the Court. The profound and lasting effects that your abduction and sexual offences have had on the victim and her family are clear. The psychological and emotional effects on the victim have been huge. She now struggles with anxiety, depression and PTSD. Your actions have also put her family under great strain.
Finite sentence
[26] Before I turn to whether you should be sentenced to preventive detention, I will determine what your final sentence would be if I impose one. I will do this following a two-step process:4
(a)First, I will set a starting point by looking at the nature and extent of your offending.
(b)Second, I will consider whether any uplifts or reductions should be made to the starting point to take account of your personal circumstances.
Stage one: starting point
[27]The Crown’s lawyer and your lawyer essentially agree on the starting point.
[28] The charge of sexual violation by rape is the lead offence. The tariff case for such offending is R v AM.5 In that case, the Court of Appeal set out four sentencing bands for rape.6 Both lawyers agree that your offending falls within rape band two. This band is for offending with moderate premeditation and levels of violence. The band is appropriate in cases involving two or three factors increasing culpability. In cases falling in this band, the starting point will be between seven and 13 years.7 Both lawyers submit that, in your case, a nine-year starting point would be appropriate.
4 Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583 at [46].
5 R v AM (CA27/2009) [2010] NZCA 114, [2010] 2 NZLR 750.
6 At [90].
7 At [98].
[29] I agree that this case falls within rape band two and that a starting point of nine years’ imprisonment is appropriate. This is because, as the lawyers have submitted, the following aggravating features are present:
(a)First, the degree of violation was significant. The offending involved full penetrative sexual intercourse.
(b)Second, the victim was vulnerable. She was 14 years’ old and was intoxicated.
(c)Third, your offending involved planning and premeditation. The victim was in your vehicle for about five or six hours while you completed your work. You then transported her from Rotorua to Taupō. You plied the victim with alcohol. You took her to the Holiday Park in Taupō and booked a unit there for the two of you. You went to significant lengths to get the victim alone and in an incapacitated state.
(d)Fourth, you degraded the victim. As I have said, when she was located, it was discovered that her genitalia had recently been shaved. I agree that the only available inference, given the victim’s level of incapacitation, is that you shaved her genitalia yourself.
(e)Finally, the level of harm to the victim was very serious. This is apparent from the victim impact statement which I have already referred to.
[30] I have reviewed the case law referred to by counsel,8 and I agree that these cases show that nine years is the appropriate starting point for your rape.
[31] The lawyers are also agreed that there should be an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment to reflect the charges of abduction and indecent assault. I agree that, as in the case of R v Faatafa,9 an uplift of 12 months is appropriate.
R v Curry [2018] NZHC 3188; Asaeli v R [2023] NZCA 486; Tahiri v R [2013] NZCA 73;
R v Faatafa HC Auckland CRI-2009-004-8563, 25 June 2010; and Smith v R [2020] NZCA 659.
9 R v Faatafa, above n 8, at [22].
[32]The result is an adjusted starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Stage two: personal circumstances
[33] I now turn to the second stage, which is to consider whether any uplifts or reductions should be applied to the adjusted starting point to take account of your personal circumstances.
[34] The Crown has submitted that there should be an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment to reflect your previous criminal history. This history demonstrates you have a propensity to commit serious sexual offending against young women who were not previously known to you. Your previous sentences have not had a deterrent effect. The Crown seeks an uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment. Your counsel accepts that an uplift of 12 months for your previous convictions is within range.
[35] I have not yet described your previous sexual offending. I will do so when I come to discuss preventive detention. However, I agree that your previous sexual offending means an uplift of 12 months is appropriate in this case.
[36] Two mitigating factors have been suggested. The first is your guilty plea. The Crown suggests that there should be a reduction of no more than five to 10 per cent for your guilty plea.
[37] The Crown points out that your guilty plea came at a late stage in the proceeding. Your first appearance was on 10 February 2023. You did not plead guilty until 7 November 2024. This was after you had pleaded not guilty and elected trial by jury. It was after the matter had proceeded through case review and trial callover. It was after a reserve trial, which was scheduled for 8 July 2024, had been vacated on 25 June 2024 due to difficulties faced by the victim. At that point, a firm trial was scheduled. Your guilty plea was, however, in advance of the firm trial commencing, which was scheduled for 11 August 2025.
[38] The Crown also submits that your guilty plea only came in the face of a strong Crown case, after the evidence regarding your previous convictions for sexual offences had been ruled admissible as evidence of propensity.
[39] Your lawyer submits that there should be a 12 per cent deduction for your guilty plea. She argues that, by pleading guilty, you spared the victim from giving evidence and what would have been a very stressful trial. Also, you sought a sentence indication, but this could not occur (for reasons which I do not need to explain).
[40] In my view, there should be a deduction of 10 per cent for this factor. I agree with the Crown that your guilty plea came very late. You did not seek a sentence indication until 4 July 2024. But a trial was avoided.
[41] The second factor that has been raised is your relationship with alcohol and its impact on your offending. This was raised by your counsel. But she also acknowledged that the nexus between your alcohol reliance and your offending is limited. I agree. In my view, there should be no reduction for this factor.
Summary
[42] In summary, the finite sentence that I would impose if I decided not to sentence you to preventive detention is 10 years’ imprisonment. This is calculated as follows:
(a)A starting point of nine years’ imprisonment on the lead charge of sexual violation by rape.
(b)An uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment, on a totality basis, in respect of the remaining offences.
(c)A further uplift of 12 months’ imprisonment to reflect your previous history of sexual offending.
(d)A discount of 10 per cent to reflect your guilty plea.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[43] If I were to impose a finite sentence, I would also impose a minimum period of imprisonment.
[44] The standard position is that you would be eligible for parole after you have served one third of your sentence.10 A minimum period of imprisonment is applicable where the standard parole eligibility period would not be sufficient to hold you accountable, denounce and deter your offending and protect the community from you.11
[45] I consider that a longer minimum period of imprisonment than the standard one third is required having regard to these factors, in particular, the need to protect the community from you. As I will discuss when I turn to preventive detention, the evidence before me suggests that there is a high risk of you committing sexual offending in the future. I consider a minimum period of imprisonment of two thirds of the full term of the sentence would be appropriate. That equates to six years and eight months’ imprisonment.
Preventive detention
[46]I now turn to whether I should impose a sentence of preventive detention.
[47] The purpose of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.12 I can impose a sentence of preventive detention if I am satisfied you are likely to commit another qualifying violent or sexual offence on release at the end date of a finite sentence. However, in deciding whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, there are certain matters that I must consider.
[48] To assist me in making my decision, I have received two expert reports.13 The first is a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Peter Dean dated 3 January 2025. The second is a psychological report prepared by Dr Jo Hallett dated 23 January 2025. I have carefully considered these reports, as well as the submissions by the Crown and by your lawyer.
10 Parole Act 2002, s 84(1).
11 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86.
12 Section 87.
13 Section 88.
[49] I said that there are certain matters that I must consider. I will go through these in turn.
Pattern of serious offending
[50] The first factor I need to consider is any pattern of serious offending disclosed by your history.
[51] The Crown submits there is a clear pattern of serious sexual offending by you. This is because this is the third set of serious sexual offences committed by you against young females who were vulnerable and not previously known to you.
[52] Your lawyer agrees with the Crown that your offending shows a pattern of offending against young women. However, she submits that the pattern largely ends there. This is because the previous offences involved a level of violence and force, which is not present in the case of your present offending.
[53] I will now describe your previous offending. The first set of serious sexual offending occurred in 2000 when you were 22 years’ old. The victim was a 19-year- old female. She was walking along the road at about 2.30 am after becoming separated from her friends following a night of clubbing. You approached her and proceeded to grab her breast. She fled. You pursued her on a bicycle. You caught up with her and pushed her on the ground. You then sat on top of her, holding her down by the shoulders so that she was unable to stand. She screamed for help. She begged you not to hurt her. You put your hand over her mouth telling her to shut up. You told her to remove her pants and threatened to assault her if she did not comply. You pulled her jeans and underwear down, kissed her on the mouth and felt her breasts. You then inserted your penis into her vagina and raped her. Someone heard the victim’s cries for help and had to forcibly push you off the victim. You were subsequently convicted on a charge of sexual violation by rape and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.14
[54] The second set of serious sexual offending occurred in 2007 when you were 29 years’ old. The 17-year-old female victim was walking home from an internet café
14 R v Nepia DC Whangarei T002388, 23 March 2001.
at about 8.30 pm. As she was walking through a park, you grabbed her from behind. You held a serrated knife to her throat and dragged her into the trees. You forced the victim to give you money before forcing her to perform oral sex on you until you ejaculated. You then lay on top of her while touching her breasts and forcibly inserting your fingers into her vagina causing her pain. You licked and sucked her breasts and genitalia, and then attempted to insert your penis into her vagina. You were interrupted when your cell phone rang. You were subsequently convicted of attempted rape, three charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, aggravated robbery, and indecent assault. You were sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years.15
[55] I agree with your lawyer that the present offending is different in that it does not involve violence and force. But nevertheless, I agree with the Crown that there is a strong pattern of serious offending here. As the Crown says, your offending was serious sexual offending against young women who were vulnerable and were not known to you. These factors are sufficient to show a clear pattern.
Seriousness of harm to the community caused by the offending
[56] The next factor is the seriousness of harm to the community caused by your offending.
[57] The nature of your offending speaks for itself. There can be no doubt that the harm caused to the victim in this case, and the victims in the two previous cases, is very serious. Your counsel rightly accepts that your offending would have had a profound and long-lasting psychological effect on all three victims.
Tendency to commit serious offences in the future
[58]The next factor is your tendency to commit serious offences in the future.
[59] I have referred to the two reports I have received. Both experts were asked to assist the Court in determining whether you are likely to commit another qualifying offence.
15 R v Nepia HC Auckland CRI-2007-044-3922, 4 June 2010.
[60] Dr Dean did not directly address this question. He said that, as a psychiatrist, he is unable to predict the risk. However, he did comment that the best predictor of risk remains past behaviour.
[61] Dr Hallett was able to provide an opinion on the question. She assessed you as being a high risk of committing sexual offending in the future.
[62] Your lawyer again emphasises that your present offending did not involve threats of violence or the use of weapons to coerce the victim. However, I do not see this as being relevant to the question of whether you are likely to offend again in the future.
[63] There is nothing that I have seen that contradicts Dr Hallett’s view that there is a high risk of you committing sexual offences in the future.
Efforts by the defendant to address the offending
[64]The next factor is the efforts you have made to address your offending.
[65] The Crown notes that you tend to minimise your offending. This is something that comes through in the reports of both Dr Dean and Dr Hallett. The Crown submits that your minimisation of your offending will necessarily inhibit your ability to properly address your offending behaviour.
[66] You engaged with the Adult Sex Offender Treatment Programme (or ASOTP) during a prior period of imprisonment. You also participated in the Drug Treatment Programme (or DTP). Once released from prison, you participated in an individual psychological treatment programme. You also engaged in ACC counselling to address [redacted].
[67] Despite reported positive engagement with ASOTP, DTP and the counselling sessions, you nevertheless went on to commit the current sexual offending. The treatment that you have received did not have the intended effect.
[68] When you were sentenced in 2010, you narrowly avoided preventative detention. You were given a last chance because, at that time, you had not had an opportunity to participate in appropriate treatment programmes. But now you have had that opportunity, and it has not stopped you.
[69] Your lawyer says that you are eager to engage in further treatment. This may be so, but the lack of success of the treatment you have received previously raises serious doubt as to the likelihood of future treatment being successful.
[70] Your lawyer also says that your whānau are willing to offer you a place to stay on their land upon your release and that you would be expected to remain on the land and have limited contact with the community. This, it is suggested, would mitigate the stressors that the expert evidence suggests may be a factor that leads to your offending. I have received a letter from your whānau explaining in more detail how they would support you. You are lucky to have their strong support. However, in view of your history, I still have real doubt about whether it is realistically likely to assist you to address your offending.
Lengthy finite sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection
[71] The final factor that I must consider is the principle that a lengthy finite sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.
[72] The Crown submits that the factors I have discussed strongly support the conclusion that an indefinite sentence is necessary. It relies on the seriousness of the offending, your attitude towards the offending and the victim, and the risk assessments carried out by the experts. The Crown submits that a finite sentence would not provide adequate protection for the community. Put simply, there is too great a risk that you will reoffend when granted parole.
[73] In contrast, your counsel argues that you do not meet the high threshold supporting a sentence of preventive detention. Your lawyer submits that there has not been an escalation in the seriousness of your offending and future treatment may mitigate against further offending. It is submitted that preventive detention is not the least restrictive outcome in the circumstances.
[74] Your counsel relies on the decision of Brown v R.16 In that case, the Court of Appeal concluded that a finite sentence with an extended supervision order was preferable to preventive detention. Your lawyer submits that I should reach the same conclusion in your case.
[75] However, a key difference between your case and Mr Brown’s case is that the offending that Mr Brown was being sentenced for was significantly less serious than your offending. The Court was concerned that preventive detention was disproportionate to Mr Brown’s offending, which would otherwise attract a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.17 Because your offending is significantly more serious than Mr Brown’s, this concern about proportionality does not arise in your case.
Conclusion
[76] Your offending, together with your history of sexual offending, reveals a clear pattern of serious sexual offending. The harm caused to each of your victims is extremely serious. You pose a significant ongoing risk to the community. Your efforts to address the causes of your offending have not been successful. A finite sentence of imprisonment is not sufficient to mitigate the risk you pose. For these reasons, my conclusion is that preventive detention is required.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[77] Because I have concluded that preventive detention is required, I must now impose a minimum period of imprisonment.
[78] The minimum period must be no less than five years.18 Further, it must be the longer of the period required to reflect the gravity of your offending or the period required for the purposes of safety of the community.19
16 Brown v R [2023] NZCA 487.
17 Brown v R [2023] NZCA 487 at [98].
18 Sentencing Act, s 89(1).
19 Section 89(2).
[79] The Crown submits that a minimum period of at least eight years’ imprisonment is appropriate to reflect the gravity of your offending, your lack of remorse, your age, and the significant risk of reoffending you pose to the community.
[80] However, I have decided the minimum period of imprisonment should be six years and eight months. In my view, this reflects the gravity of your offending and is the period that is required for the purposes of safety of the community.
Registration on the Child Sex Offender Register
[81] I am required to let you know you will automatically be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.20
Sentence
[82] Mr Nepia, on the charge of sexual violation by rape, I sentence you to preventive detention. I impose a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and eight months.
[83] On the charge of abduction for sexual connection, I sentence you to six years’ imprisonment.
[84] On the charge of doing an indecent act on a young person, I sentence you to three years’ imprisonment.
[85]All sentences are to be served concurrently.
[86]You may stand down.
Blanchard J
20 Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, s 7.
0