For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
˝
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA48/06 [2007] NZCA 28
THE QUEEN
v
JACOB RANGAITI PETA
Hearing: 18 July 2006 and 30 November 2006
Court: Glazebrook, Chisholm and Wild JJ Counsel: G P Mason for Appellant
S B Edwards for the Crown
Judgment: 28 February 2007 at 2pm
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is allowed and the extended supervision order imposed on Mr Peta
is quashed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Glazebrook J)
R V PETA CA CA48/06 28 February 2007
Table of Contents
Para No
Introduction [1] Overview of the ESO regime [5] Assessment methodology used by health assessors [15] Static-AS or Automated Sexual Recidivism Scale (ASRS) [17]
Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR) [31] The revised psychopathy checklist (PCL-R) and sexual deviancy [39] Other relevant factors [44]
Best practice in risk assessment [50] Why we had to deal with the matter afresh [55] The effect of the new evidence on the original health
assessor’s report [62]
Mr Peta’s ASRS score [62] The effect of the lack of previous convictions and boy victims [77] The alleged double counting of violent offences [82]
The assessment of Mr Peta performed by Dr Vess [85]
Is an ESO justified based on the evidence now before
the Court? [95]
Result [105]
Introduction
[1] Mr Peta is not what is colloquially known as a decent law abiding citizen. Even as a juvenile he had extensive criminal convictions, beginning in 1999 with an aggravated robbery at the age of 14. As an adult, Mr Peta has been convicted of a variety of offences, including theft, assault, possession of a pistol, unlawful interference with a motor vehicle, escape from custody, possession of cannabis and, the most relevant convictions for this appeal, two counts of committing an indecent act with a girl under 12.
[2] The question for this appeal is whether Mr Peta should be subject to an extended supervision order (ESO) for the next ten years due to the risk he poses of sexually re-offending against children. Judge Dawson imposed the ESO on
5 January 2006 after considering a report by a senior psychologist from the Department of Corrections. We began hearing Mr Peta’s appeal from that decision on 18 July 2006. By minute of 31 July 2006, we informed the parties that we considered that the reasons given by the Judge for the imposition of an ESO were so inadequate that the matter had to be reconsidered afresh. As an appeal against the
imposition of an ESO is treated as an appeal against sentence (see s 107R(2) of the Parole Act 2002 (the Act)) and as we have no power to remit a sentence for reconsideration, this Court was obliged to deal with the matter itself: see s 385(3) of the Crimes Act 1961.
[3] On the evidence that was before…
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 Peta
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Peta [2007] NZCA 28
Case
[2007] NZCA 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Jacob Rangaiti Peta, appeals against the decision of Judge Dawson to impose an extended supervision order (ESO) on him for the next ten years on the basis that he posed a real and ongoing risk of committing sexual offences against children. The ESO was imposed on 5 January 2006. The Court of Appeal heard Mr Peta's appeal on 18 July 2006 and, after hearing further evidence and submissions from the parties on 30 November 2006, allowed the appeal and quashed the ESO on 28 February 2007. The Court found that the reasons given by the Judge for the imposition of an ESO were so inadequate that the matter had to be reconsidered afresh. The Court found that, on the evidence now before it, Mr Peta's risk of sexual recidivism against children was not such to justify the imposition of an ESO. The Court found that the risk of relevant offending by Mr Peta was not both real, ongoing and one that could not sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the likely re-offending.