R v Nepia
[2022] NZHC 198
•15 February 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-004-004405
[2022] NZHC 198
THE QUEEN v
LEVI NEPIA
Hearing: 15 February 2022 Appearances:
L Nunweek for Crown
E Gresson on instructions from R Chambers for Defendant
Sentence:
15 February 2022
SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J
Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland R Chambers, Auckland
R v NEPIA [2022] NZHC 198 [15 February 2022]
Introduction
[1] Ms Nepia, you appear for sentence today having entered guilty pleas to the following charges:
(a)aggravated burglary (x 1). This is an offence pursuant to s 232(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for such offending is 14 years’ imprisonment.
(b)using a document for pecuniary advantage (x 1). This is an offence pursuant to s 228(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
[2] Your sentencing engages the “three strikes” regime under the Sentencing Act 2002. You received a first strike warning on 12 September 2013 following a conviction for aggravated robbery. You received a second strike warning on 20 September 2016 following a conviction for aggravated burglary. The present aggravated burglary is your third strike offence. This means that I must sentence you to the maximum sentence for aggravated burglary which, as I have noted, is 14 years’ imprisonment. The Sentencing Act requires me to impose this sentence. In addition, I must order that that sentence be served without parole, unless I am satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to make that order.1
Relevant facts
[3]All five victims lived together in a residential property in Onehunga.
[4] On 23 August 2019, you and your co-offenders, a Ms Manuel and an unknown male, entered the victims’ house through the front door. The male offender uplifted a knife from the kitchen.
[5] At about 5.00 am, the first victim awoke when his bedroom door was swung open and the male offender burst into the room. The second victim, who was sharing the bedroom, awoke to find the male offender tapping on his face with the knife. The
1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86D(2) and (3).
male offender shouted and swore at the victims. He focused his attention on the second victim, asking him “Are you that guy? Are you that guy?” The second victim was directed to lie on his bed and look at the wall. He was told that if he did not do so, he would be stabbed. The male offender used the handle of the knife to hit the second victim multiple times on the right side of his head.
[6] You and your co-offenders then began rummaging through the two victims’ drawers and wardrobes. One of you located a suitcase on top of a wardrobe and you began filling it with various items of property belonging to the victims, including shoes, clothing, suitcases, bags, phones and a wallet. While the victims’ property was being taken, the male offender directed the victims to face the wall otherwise he would “smash” them and cut off their ears. Fearing for their safety, the victims complied.
[7] You and your co-offenders left the room for a short time but later returned. You and the male offender then took further items including the keys to the first victim’s car, a Rakhi band and a silver chain from around his neck. The male offender tapped the first victim’s head with the knife while demanding these items, reminding the victim that he would “cut [his] ears and stab [him] in the eyes” if he failed to comply. You and Ms Manuel put t-shirts over the two victims’ heads and turned off the bedroom lights. The victims were warned that if they moved, you and your co-offenders would return to the house and stab them.
[8] Before leaving, you noticed the first victim’s television and said “I will take this for my children”. From outside the room, the male offender was heard singing, “My king has said to bring an ear from one person here, which one should I take”, taunting the victims.
[9] The third and fourth victims were also asleep in a separate bedroom at the time you and your co-offenders entered the house. They awoke to find you and your co-offenders talking and opening up drawers in various cabinets in their room. The third victim switched on the bedroom light to see all three of you carrying his television out of his room. The third and fourth victims were then threatened by the male offender, who was holding the knife. He told them “don’t move, lay down, who wants to die first?” The third victim asked what you were doing. The male offender
responded by using the handle of the knife to strike the fourth victim three or four times to his head. The fourth victim began to bleed from a cut to his right upper cheek. The male offender then approached the third victim, grabbed his collar, and used the handle of the knife to strike him three or four times to the head. The third and fourth victims were then told to sit in a corner of the room. Fearing for their safety, they complied.
[10] The third and fourth victims watched as you, Ms Manuel and the male offender took a large amount of property from their bedroom. The stolen property included a laptop, an Apple watch, clothing, shoes, headphones, phones, a suitcase, wallets and vehicle keys.
[11] At one point you retrieved a bottle of milk from the fridge and took it with you into the third and fourth victims’ bedroom. Upon entering the room, you took possession of the knife from the male offender. You used the flat side of the knife blade to tap on the third victim’s head, demanding that he tell you where the “phones, watches and gold” were. You then proceeded to tip milk over the heads of both victims before leaving the room.
[12] The fifth victim, hearing this commotion in his flatmates’ bedrooms, feared for his own safety. He reinforced his already locked bedroom door by pushing his bedside table up against it. He lay on the floor until he was told by the other victims that you and your co-offenders had left.
[13] During the incident, the fourth victim’s credit card was stolen. It was used at a service station later that morning to purchase an energy drink, chocolate milk and a packet of cigarettes.
Three strikes regime
[14] As I have noted, the Sentencing Act requires the Court to sentence an offender convicted of a third strike offence to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed. That is 14 years’ imprisonment in the case of aggravated burglary. The only question for me today is whether it would be manifestly unjust to impose that sentence without parole.
[15] An order that the sentence be served without parole is the usual statutory consequence of third strike offending. I may depart from it only if I consider that it would be manifestly unjust not to do so. I am required to consider the circumstances of the offence and your circumstances.
[16] The leading decision on the manifest injustice exception in relation to third strike offences is the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Harrison.2 In that case, the Court said:3
The judicial approach to the scope of the manifestly unjust exception is intended to avoid wholly disproportionate, that is, grossly disproportionate, sentencing outcomes.
…
The case for a finding of manifest injustice must be clear and convincing. This follows from the use of the word “manifestly”. However such cases need not be rare or exceptional.
[17] Both counsel today have referred to, and I adopt, the approach summarised by Collins J in R v Waitokia.4 I will assess both the circumstances of the offending and your personal circumstances. The sentence that would have been imposed but for the three strikes regime is relevant. I will also consider whether you had the ability to understand your two earlier warnings, your level of culpability for the offending and whether you are likely to reoffend.
[18] Ultimately, the application of the manifestly unjust exception is intensely factual.5
The circumstances of your offending
[19] You took part in what appears to have been a premeditated home invasion, along with two co-offenders. The five victims were awoken in the early hours of the morning, to find the three of you in their house, armed with a knife. The unknown male was responsible for threatening and for perpetrating the majority of the violence
2 R v Harrison [2016] NZCA 381, [2016] 3 NZLR 602.
3 At [108(a)–(b)].
4 R v Waitokia [2018] NZHC 2146 at [8].
5 At [8], citing R v Harrison, above n 2, at [108(f)].
that took place. However, you also had a significant role in what occurred. As I have noted, at one stage you took the knife from the male offender and used it to tap one of the victims on the head, demanding that he tell you where valuable items were kept. You also poured milk over the heads of two of the victims and placed t-shirts over the heads of two other of the victims.
[20] Although you did not inflict any of the injuries sustained by the victims, it appears from the summary of facts which you accepted when you pleaded guilty, that you had formed a common intention with your co-offenders to enter the victims’ home in the early hours of the morning in order to steal from them. Your counsel suggested that you were there to collect money you say was owing to you for providing services as a prostitute to the victims. That allegation is not contained in the summary of facts to which you pleaded guilty nor consistent with what you told the writer of the pre-sentence report. As I understand it, counsel’s submissions are however consistent with an interview you gave to the police. Whether you were there to collect an alleged debt does not seem to me to make a difference. There was clearly a premeditated home invasion where a weapon was used, the victims were threatened and injuries were inflicted. A significant amount of property was stolen. Further, during the course of the burglary, a credit card was stolen and used the following day. You were the offender who used the card.
[21] I have received two victim impact statements. One is from one of the victims who was struck with the knife. He was hit with the knife just below his eye. It was very painful at the time. He received three stitches to close the wound. He considers himself lucky that he was not hit or cut elsewhere. Both he and the other victim who has completed a victim impact statement say that the offending has had a significant financial impact on them. They say that you and your co-offenders took everything they had. The value of the items stolen from one victim was approximately $10,000. The other victim says that the items stolen from him were valued at approximately
$9,000.
Your personal circumstances
Pre-sentence report
[22] The report writer noted that this is your 17th appearance for sentencing since 2007. He noted that various types of sentence have been imposed on you, including both electronic monitoring and imprisonment, but that none has deterred you from reoffending. It was considered that this highlights your primary issues – namely associating with negative peers and drug addiction. You have expressed an intention to engage in rehabilitation and to make a change, but the writer observed that your intentions are yet to be tested in the community. The view was expressed that rehabilitation programmes might however prove beneficial to you.
[23] Your likelihood of reoffending was assessed as medium and it was suggested that you pose a medium risk of harm to others.
[24] It was recorded that you have six children, aged between 14 years and one year. They are living with other members of your family. You expressed your willingness to address your own issues in order to reunite with your children.
[25] When the summary of facts was discussed with you, you told the report writer that you had met one of the victims through a friend and that you were high on drugs at the time and unable to make good decisions. You also stated that you were going through a lot of stress at the time, working as a prostitute, and trying to take care of your sick father. You said that you were also struggling with your own trauma from a previous violent relationship. You expressed remorse, saying that you were deeply sorry for what you did.
Section 27 report
[26] I have received a helpful s 27 report prepared by Jack Nielsen of Tapu Law Consulting Ltd. The report considers your background and circumstances.
[27] You were born in Auckland and raised by your parents, who separated when you were born. You report that as a child you went back and forth between your parents, that they lived all over the place and that the last time you saw them was when
you were 10 years of age. You said that your mother had drug addiction problems and that you had to help in raising your younger brothers. You said that you had to steal to feed them and yourself. The report writer suggested that property and violent offending behaviour, role modelled by innumerable family members, saw you participate in criminal activity over a long period.
[28] It also appears that you were exposed to domestic violence as a child and by a former partner. Your family members were apparently gang members and your father apparently held high office in the King Cobra gang. You said that you were exposed to “violence, gangs, drugs, sex and everything” as a child, and that for you this was “normal”.
[29] You have no long-term work or employment history. You have been a beneficiary for much of your life. Completing secondary school education was not an option for you. You were a rebellious student and you got expelled from a number of schools for fighting, selling pills and the like. As a result, when you left school, you did not have any formal qualifications.
[30] When you were 15, you formed a relationship, which lasted for some 16 years. There are five children from that relationship but you report that it was “toxic”. You said that there was “heaps of violence” and that there were a number of call-outs by Oranga Tamariki. You also said that there was a lot of drug use in the relationship.
[31] You have spent much of your recent life in custody and as a result, have seen little of your children. You however want to be a positive influence and a responsible matriarch in the family, but you acknowledge that you will need help and support to do so.
[32] You have a history of substance abuse, starting at a young age. Violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour have been a constant in your life. The report writer expressed the view that your upbringing, drug use and abusive de facto relationship have been the origins of your aggressive nature and that the breakdown of your family dynamics has shaped your behaviour.
The sentence that would have been imposed but for the three strikes regime
[33] I now consider the sentence that would have been imposed but for the three strikes regime.
Starting point
[34] The leading offence is the aggravated burglary. It is well established that the principles expressed in the guideline decision for aggravated robbery, R v Mako,6 are equally applicable to aggravated burglary. In that case, the Court of Appeal stated:
[58] Forced entry to premises at night by a number of offenders seeking money, drugs or other property, violence against victims, where weapons are brandished even if no serious injuries are inflicted would require a starting point of seven years or more. Where a private home is entered the starting point would be increased under the home invasion provisions to around ten years.
[35] The home invasion provisions have since been repealed, meaning the above passage must be read in light of the fact that there was previously a higher maximum penalty for an aggravated robbery or burglary that involved a home invasion.7 However, unlawful entry into a dwelling house is now recognised as an aggravating factor which falls to be considered under s 9(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act.
[36] Both counsel submit, and I agree, that the following aggravating factors were present in your offending:
(a)Home invasion. While unlawful entry is inherent in the offence of aggravated burglary, your unlawful entry was aggravated by the fact that it took place at a private dwelling when the occupants were in bed in the early hours of the morning.
(b)Number of offenders. There were three offenders.
6 R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170 (CA).
7 Tipene v R [2021] NZCA 565 at [11].
(c)Number of victims. There were five victims. Four were directly confronted by you and your co-offenders. The fifth lay hidden and in fear for the duration of the offending.
(d)Use of a weapon. A knife was brandished and used against some of the victims, albeit with the handle rather than the blade.
(e)Attacks to the head. Two victims were hit on the head with the knife handle.
(f)Extent of loss. The full amount of the loss has not been quantified, but it is clear that a substantial amount of property was taken, including a laptop, a watch, headphones, phones, wallets and items of clothing.
[37] Starting points upheld or imposed by the Court of Appeal in recent years for aggravated robberies involving home invasion have generally ranged from six and a half to ten years.8 I have considered a number of the cases.9
[38] I consider that the offending in your case is comparable to that in some of the cases. As I have already noted, the home invasion was in the early morning. There seems to have been some albeit limited premeditation. You were one of the three offenders. You and your co-offenders directly confronted the victims; you used the knife to tap one victim’s head and you threatened other victims if they moved. You played a lesser role in the offending than the unknown male, but a greater role than Ms Manuel.
8 Poi v R [2020] NZCA 312.
9 Poi v R, above n 8 – home invasion, weapons brandished, a degree of planning and premeditation, some actual violence and significant threatened violence, some detention, multiple offenders, and the use of disguises – starting point eight years; Sylva v R [2017] NZCA 567 – home invasion, young victim, multiple offenders, use of weapon, disguises, threats of violence and actual violence, gang overtones, property taken – starting point of seven and a half years for appellant not involved in direct confrontation but present; Stratton-Pineaha v R [2020] NZCA 50 – home invasion at night, multiple offenders, gang regalia, intention to dissuade victim from giving evidence, theft of valuable property, threats of violence using knife – starting point of seven years; Hemopo v R [2016] NZCA 242 – home invasion, actual violence, detention – starting point of nine years; Tereora v R [2015] NZCA 120 – home invasion, multiple offenders, disguise, actual violence, property taken, victim restrained – starting point six and a half years; Currie v R [2010] NZCA 449 – use of firearm, threats made – starting point of eight years; and Pearson v R [2020] NZCA 573 – home invasion at night, brandishing and use of weapon, presence of and threats to young children, injuries inflicted, premeditation – starting point of nine years.
[39] There is also an issue of parity. Ms Manuel accepted a sentence indication from Moore J, where a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment for her role in the offending was adopted.10 The Judge noted Ms Manuel’s “relatively modest contribution to the offending”. Like you, she actively participated in stealing the property and engaged with the victims, helping you place t-shirts over two of the victims’ heads. However, unlike you, she did not engage in the use of violence. Her offending was less serious than yours.
[40] Having regard to the circumstances of your offending, the guideline decision in Mako, the comparator cases and the need for parity with your co-offender Ms Manuel, I consider that, but for the three strikes regime, a starting point of seven and a half years would have been appropriate for your offending.
Uplift for remaining charge
[41] The Crown submitted that an uplift of three months’ imprisonment would have been appropriate for the remaining charge of using a document for pecuniary advantage, taking into account totality principles. You have accepted responsibility for that offending. I agree with the Crown. This results in an adjusted starting point of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment.
Personal aggravating and mitigating factors
[42]There are aggravating and mitigating factors personal to you.
[43] You have a significant criminal history dating back to 2007, for a range of offences including dishonesty (such as shoplifting), alcohol-related and other driving offences, breaches of various Court orders, aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. Significantly, as I have already noted, you received first and second strike warnings in relation to charges of aggravated robbery (in 2013) and aggravated burglary (in 2016). I have considered the factual summaries for that offending. Broadly, it is not dissimilar to the offending in respect of which you are currently being sentenced. It is concerning that you have continued to commit these kinds of offences
10 R v Manuel [2020] NZHC 2587.
despite receiving warnings at each stage. I consider that an uplift of six months’ imprisonment (or six and a half per cent) would be appropriate for your criminal history.
[44] In terms of personal mitigating factors, I consider you would have been entitled to a discount for the various matters raised in the s 27 report. The report provides an ample basis from which I can infer a causal link between the dysfunction and social deprivation that has characterised your life, and the offending. I emphasise the following:
(a)You had an unstable upbringing.
(b)You were exposed to criminal behaviour – “violence, gangs, drugs, sex”
– from a young age due in part to your family’s involvement in the King Cobra gang.
(c)You were expelled from most of your schools for fighting and selling pills. You have no formal qualifications and no long-term work or employment history.
(d)You left school at a very young age to become a teenage mother.
(e)You started abusing substances at a young age.
(f)At the time of your offending you were using methamphetamine daily. Substance abuse seems to be the biggest issue you face.
(g)None of these matters has been successfully addressed to date although it appears that some rehabilitation may have been offered to you in the past.
[45] The Court is not required to be satisfied that the matters identified in the report are the proximate cause of your offending, rather that there is a causal connection. I consider that a causal connection is clear in your case. The factors identified can properly be said to have impaired your choices in life and I accept that in a wider sense
they diminish your culpability. I consider a discount of 10 months (approximately 10 per cent) would have been appropriate to recognise these factors.
[46] I have received a letter from you expressing remorse for your offending. It is however very late in the day and there is nothing in the materials before me to suggest that you have taken any concrete steps to try and rehabilitate yourself or to turn your life around. Further, this is your third strike offence. In both of your earlier strike offences, you indicated a desire to turn your life around. You did not do so on either occasion. In these circumstances I do not consider it would have been appropriate to award a discrete discount for remorse.
[47] You would have been entitled to a discount for your guilty pleas. Any reduction cannot exceed 25 per cent.11 The Crown submitted that a discount of no more than 10 per cent would be appropriate given that the pleas were entered at a late opportunity (on 27 July 2021, with the trial scheduled to commence on 2 August 2021). Your counsel submitted that the pleas spared Court time and public resources, and saved the victims from reliving their experience in a public trial. I accept this, but the pleas were entered very late in the face of what seems to have been a strong Crown case. I consider a discount of nine months – again 10 per cent – would have been appropriate.
[48] This takes the end sentence that would have been imposed, but for the three strikes regime, to six years and eight months’ imprisonment.
Earlier warnings
[49] There is nothing to suggest that the warnings given to you in respect of your first and second strike offences were not understood by you. Indeed, Judge Cocurullo, who gave you the second strike warning, recorded that you would have heard it “loud and clear”.12
[50] As I have already noted, your two earlier strike offences were broadly similar in nature. Both involved group robbery of victims who were vulnerable. The first was
11 Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [75].
12 R v Nepia [2016] NZDC 18385 at [6].
a sole shopkeeper in a small retail premises. The second involved the robbery of a victim inside her home. While you were not directly involved in inflicting violence in either case, and while your involvement in the first case was that of a getaway driver, you nevertheless formed a common plan with others to confront the victims when armed in order to steal property.
[51] It is clear that the warnings you have received have not deterred you from participating in this type of offending.
[52] Unlike a number of the other third strike cases, this is not a case where the first and second stage offending is of little relevance to the third strike offence. Instead, your first and second stage offences bear directly on your present offending. It is hard to escape the conclusion that you have continued to offend despite knowledge of the consequences made clear to you by your previous warnings.
Your culpability
[53] I have already addressed this issue. The Crown submitted that you played a primary role in the offending. In my judgment, the primary role was taken by the unknown male offender. You however played a significant role. Although you did not perpetuate the most serious of the violence or threats during the offending, you did directly confront the victims and you threatened one of them.
Your likelihood of reoffending
[54] The pre-sentence report states that given the recidivist nature of your offending and your yet to be addressed rehabilitative needs, the likelihood of reoffending by you is medium. You are also considered as posing a medium risk of inflicting harm on others.
[55] I agree with this assessment. Your offending history supports the view expressed.
Manifest injustice?
[56] I now turn to consider all of this information in determining whether or not it would be manifestly unjust to impose a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment without parole.
[57] The Courts have determined that it would be manifestly unjust to impose the maximum sentence available without parole in a number of third strike cases.13 The nature of the third strike offence along with the nature of the earlier strike offences has been treated as relevant. So have guilty pleas, remorse and demonstrated insight into the offending, together with rehabilitative prospects. Mental health issues can be relevant as can be any disparity between the sentence that would have been imposed but for the three strikes regime. Parity with sentences imposed on co-offenders can also be relevant.
[58] The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 must also be considered. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to disproportionately severe punishment.14
[59] Bearing in mind that s 86D necessarily contemplates disproportionate (albeit not grossly disproportionate) outcomes, I nevertheless consider it would be manifestly unjust to impose a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment on you without parole. This is for the following reasons:
(a)You entered a guilty plea to the third strike offence.
(b)The offending is serious, albeit not the most serious offending of its type.
13 R v Campbell [2016] NZHC 2817; Fitzgerald v R [2020] NZCA 292, (2020) 29 CRNZ 350 on appeal; Fitzgerald v R [2021] NZSC 131, (2021) 12 HRNZ 739; R v Sanders [2019] NZHC 164; R v Allen [2020] NZHC 1796; R v Pomee [2018] NZHC 2891; R v Sheers [2020] NZHC 1596; and R v Kaienua [2019] NZHC 2586. See also R v Waitokia, above n 4; and R v Nuku [2018] NZHC 2510. In both cases the Court declined to find manifest injustice.
14 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 9; and see Fitzgerald v R (SC), above n 13, at [3].
(c)You have demonstrated some insight into your offending, although this factor is tempered by the fact that you claimed to have similar insight at the time you committed the second strike offence.
(d)There is a clear disparity between the sentence you would have received but for s 86D (six years and eight months) and the maximum penalty the Court must impose (14 years). The difference is more than double.
(e)But for the three strikes regime, and if no minimum term of imprisonment is imposed, you would fall to be considered for parole after serving one third of your sentence15 – in your case after serving approximately two years and three months’ imprisonment. Subject to any minimum term of imprisonment if parole were to be granted, requiring that you serve the mandatory sentence without parole would add over 11 and a half years to the sentence which you might serve. Even if a minimum term of imprisonment is imposed, it cannot exceed two thirds of the determinate sentence of imprisonment. There would still be a significant discrepancy in the sentence you might serve.
(f)To deprive you of the opportunity to obtain parole would place you in a very different position than that of your co-offender, Ms Manuel. While your offending was more serious than her offending, the difference does not require the disparity which would arise if you are required to serve your sentence without parole.
(g)Your dysfunctional and deprived upbringing is, in my view, linked to your offending. So is your drug addiction and history of substance abuse. These matters diminish your moral culpability.
(h)The rehabilitative treatment assistance you clearly need (for example for your substance abuse) would likely be delayed if parole were to be denied. Allowing you to apply for parole gives you an incentive to try
15 Parole Act 2002, s 84.
and rehabilitate, so that you can achieve a favourable outcome when you come before the Parole Board.
(i)You have expressed a willingness to undergo rehabilitative treatment and to participate in appropriate programmes. You have previously expressed the same willingness but failed to deliver. Nevertheless, you are still relatively young at 32 years of age. There is still hope that you will be able to turn your life around.
[60] For these reasons, I consider that it would be manifestly unjust to order that you serve your sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment without parole.
Sentence
[61]Ms Nepia, will you please stand.
[62] I impose a sentence on you of 14 years’ imprisonment in respect of the charge of aggravated burglary.
[63] In respect of the charge of using a document for pecuniary advantage, I impose a sentence on you of six months’ imprisonment. Section 86D(6) of the Sentencing Act requires that this sentence must be imposed concurrently. That means that you will serve both sentences at the same time.
[64] I consider that it would be manifestly unjust to require you to serve your sentence without parole. I decline to order that you serve the sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment without parole.
[65] I have considered whether or not it is necessary to impose a minimum period of imprisonment on you, pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act. While the risk you pose of further offending is considered to be only medium, in my judgment, a minimum period of imprisonment longer than the parole eligibility period otherwise applicable under s 84(1) of the Parole Act 2002 is appropriate. Ms Gresson, appearing on your behalf, accepted this. I am satisfied that the standard parole period under the Parole Act would be insufficient to hold you accountable for the harm done to the
victims and to the community by your offending, and/or to denounce the conduct in which you were involved and/or to deter others from committing the same offence. I impose a minimum period of imprisonment of four years.
[66] Ms Nepia, you have yet again expressed the desire to undertake rehabilitation and to turn your life around. You say that you want to get back with your children and that you want to serve a useful role in their lives. I trust that you will carry through with this. It will not be easy for you but I hope that you will be able to put your past behind you and become a productive member of society.
[67]You may stand down.
Wylie J
0
19
0