R v Nepia - [2025] NZHC 583

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…

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 Nepia

Details

AGLC: R v Nepia [2025] NZHC 583
Case: [2025] NZHC 583
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clint Nepia appeared for sentence on charges of abduction for sexual connection, doing an indecent act on a young person, and sexual violation by rape. Nepia had pleaded guilty to these charges. The key issue for the court was whether to sentence Nepia to preventive detention, which is a sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period. The court heard evidence of Nepia's offending, which involved abducting a 14-year-old girl, plying her with alcohol, and raping her. The court also heard expert evidence about Nepia's risk of reoffending. The court concluded that Nepia posed a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of the community and imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and eight months. The court also sentenced Nepia to six years' imprisonment for abduction for sexual connection and three years' imprisonment for doing an indecent act on a young person, with all sentences to be served concurrently.

The court began by setting a starting point of nine years' imprisonment for the lead offence of sexual violation by rape, with an uplift of 12 months to reflect the charges of abduction and indecent assault. The court then considered whether any uplifts or reductions should be applied to the starting point to take account of Nepia's personal circumstances. The Crown submitted that there should be an uplift of 12 months to reflect Nepia's previous criminal history of sexual offending against young women. The court agreed that an uplift of 12 months was appropriate. Nepia's lawyer submitted that there should be a reduction of 12 per cent for Nepia's guilty plea, but the court considered a reduction of 10 per cent to be appropriate. The court also rejected a reduction for Nepia's relationship with alcohol and its impact on his offending. The court concluded that the finite sentence that it would impose if it decided not to sentence Nepia to preventive detention was 10 years' imprisonment.

The court then turned to the question of whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court considered a number of factors, including Nepia's pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of harm to the community caused by the offending, Nepia's tendency to commit serious offences in the future, Nepia's efforts to address his offending, and the principle that a lengthy finite sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection for society. The court concluded that Nepia's offending, together with his history of sexual offending, revealed a clear pattern of serious sexual offending. The harm caused to each of his victims was extremely serious. Nepia posed a significant ongoing risk to the community. Nepia's efforts to address the causes of his offending had not been successful. A finite sentence of imprisonment was not sufficient to mitigate the risk Nepia posed. For these reasons, the court concluded that preventive detention was required.

The court imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of six years and eight months, which reflected the gravity of Nepia's offending and was the period required for the purposes of safety of the community. The court also required Nepia to be registered on the Child Sex Offender Register.

Orders