R v Pillai HC Auckland CRI 2006-092-2766
[2010] NZHC 353
•24 March 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2006-092-2766
THE QUEEN
v
JUNIOR RANGA SAMI PILLAI
Appearances: N R Williams and JLS Shaw for the Crown
S D Cassidy for the prisoner
Sentence: 24 March 2010
SENTENCING NOTES OF PRIESTLEY J
Counsel/Solicitors:
N R Williams & JLS Shaw Meredith Connell & Co, P O Box 2213, Auckland 1140. Fax: 09 336 7629
S D Cassidy, P O Box 26172, Epsom, Auckland 1344. Fax: 09 631 7765
R V JUNIOR RANGA SAMI PILLAI HC AK CRI-2006-092-2766 [24 March 2010]
Introduction and offending
[1] Mr Pillai, you have been found guilty or have pleaded guilty to 48 offences. Twenty-nine of the convictions involve serious sexual offending against vulnerable young women. The other 19 convictions involve blackmail and obtaining financial benefits by deception. Those convictions too have their origins in predatory sexual conduct.
[2] Your conduct was disgraceful. You have caused untold damage to your victims. Your sexual offending was carefully planned, deliberate, repeated, and predatory.
[3] Generalised statements about sexual offending are unhelpful. The sheer number of your convictions relating to offences committed in a relatively short timeframe against a significant number of young women must categorise you as one
of the more serious sexual offenders to appear in New Zealand courts for some time. All that you have in your favour are your relative youth; the fact that before this spate of offending was uncovered you had no previous convictions; and that somewhat late in the day you decided to plead guilty to a large number of counts. That decision, in conjunction with the specialists’ reports I have, suggest a belated willingness on your part to scrutinise your own behaviour and accept full responsibility, rather than persisting in denial or blame of others.
[4] I do not intend to devote much time this morning to specifically describing your offending. I shall attach to my sentencing notes a table which sets out the full detail on a count by count and victim by victim basis. I shall also attach to my notes
a copy of the description of your offending, on a victim by victim basis, which appeared in Crown counsel’s submissions and to which there is no challenge.
[5] I am sentencing you this morning on 13 counts of sexual violation by rape;
11 counts of unlawful sexual connection (being the full gamut of anal, oral, and digital penetration); one count each of attempted sexual violation and sexual connection with a young person; and three counts of unlawful detention with intent
to have sexual connection. Additionally there are 13 counts of blackmail and six counts under s 240(1) of obtaining by deception.
[6] Your sexual offending took place between June 2006 and May 2008. There was a total of 14 female victims.
[7] Eight of your victims were raped. Two others were sexually violated. Six of the rape victims were additionally sexually violated by unlawful sexual connection. One of these latter victims was under the age of 16. Another of your victims was a family member in her early teens.
[8] At a trial over which I presided in late July/August 2009 a jury convicted you
on all 22 of the charges or alternative charges which you faced. At the outset of that trial you pleaded guilty to a further five counts under s 240(1).
[9] At the end of that trial two further trials lay ahead. One of those trials would have involved counts relating to one of your younger victims which had been severed off. The other trial related to another group of complainants where the offending was similar to that which had been canvassed in your July trial. You appeared before me in November because a remand was necessary to obtain further reports. At that appearance, with the full co-operation of your counsel, I indicated to you that were you to consider guilty pleas in respect of the trials which lay ahead credit would be given to you. As a result on 2 December 2009 you pleaded guilty before Andrews J to a further 21 counts.
[10] All your victims were young women of South Asian or Fijian Indian ethnicity. At the time of the offending most of them were at school or attending tertiary institutes. The age range was from 12 to 22. Five of them were under 16 at the time of the offending. All were from families which, for cultural reasons, were conservative and patriarchal. All families, including the victims, followed a religious faith at the stricter end of the religious spectrum. Most were Hindu, but others were Muslim, Christian, or Zorastrian. You yourself, from a Fijian Indian background, knew full well the cultural restrictions and family expectations which
surrounded these young women. You used that knowledge to exploit them and to threaten or extort from them sex and other advantages.
[11] Eleven of your victims you met on social internet sites including Bebo and
Hi-five. In most cases you made internet contact with your victims (frequently following up the internet contact with cell phone calls) by using false identities. Sometimes you posted a false photograph which purported to be you. You used a variety of false names. You gave false information to the women about your employment, or your education, or your social status.
[12] You asked approximately nine of your victims to send you on-line naked photographs of themselves. Some complied. Others did not. You would then use this mix of illicit social contact, photographs, or false stories about yourself, as a platform for sexual and financial demands. Your modus operandi was sophisticated and calculated. You exploited your victims’ emotions of fear, family sanctions, and social exposure or, in one s 240 case, sympathy. You threatened exposure to parents. In one case you threatened deportation.
[13] Having thus entrapped your victims, either through blackmail or by subtle means of flirtatious exchanges on-line, or through texting, you arranged to pick up your victims in a car and would take them to various Auckland motels or other locations where your sexual offending took place. With some of your victims your sexual offending was accompanied by a significant degree of force.
[14] There was qualitatively different offending against a young family member aged 12 whom you frightened by suggesting you had paid her school fees and that her education was in jeopardy. Using that leverage you raped her anally and vaginally approximately 10 times. That offending is the subject of a representative charge to which you pleaded guilty. This offending occurred in the child’s home environment.
[15] In regard to the s 240 victims the total amount obtained through deception was $11,300.
[16] You will be aware of the maximum penalties for this offending. Rape and unlawful sexual connection carry a 20 year maximum. Blackmail and unlawful detention carry 14 year maximums. With multiple offences of your type the maximum is no barrier to my imposing a term of imprisonment in excess of 20 years, as the Court of Appeal indicated in R v Xie.[1]
Impact on victims
[1] R v Xie [20707] NZCA 240.
[17] I have received and read impact statements from all 14 of your victims. They make harrowing reading. The damage you inflicted on these young women has been enormous, and in some cases may be permanent. The emotional harm which sexual offending inflicts on women, particularly young women whose sexuality is still developing, is always significant. With your victims this damage has been aggravated and compounded by cultural factors, such as the huge social value placed
on virginity, patriarchal control, the concept of women passing from the control of the father to control of the husband, and community expectations surrounding women eligible for marriage. Many of your victims, in that cultural context, regard themselves as being irretrievably damaged.
[18] I do not intend to give full summaries of the victim impact statements. The common themes are low self-esteem; fragmentation of family bonds; financial loss and hardship; lack of trust and safety; fears; depression; and in two cases suicide attempts; nightmares; anger; grieving over loss of virginity, and a sense of shame. One of your victims became pregnant.
[19] Nothing I can say can really console your victims. Some have been spared the ordeal of trial as a result of your guilty pleas. Those who gave evidence at your trial did so bravely and fearlessly. I suspect that all of these young women had already experienced increased vulnerability and confusion as a result of the huge adjustments required of young women of their cultural and family backgrounds in
adapting to the more free and easy and individualistic life available to teenagers and
young women in metropolitan New Zealand. Their co-operation with the police, particularly in some cases in the face of family opposition, was courageous and commendable. And in that regard, Mr Williams, would you please convey to the officer-in-charge my admiration for the competent and sensitive way in which the investigations were conducted and the general handling by the police of these multiple prosecutions.
Personal circumstances and health professional reports
[20] After your trial, the Crown, rightly perceiving that the large number of charges you faced and the repetition of your offending raised serious concerns about public safety, submitted that preventive detention should be explored as a sentencing option. Thus two reports were obtained, one from Dr K Pillai (no relation), a consultant psychiatrist with the Waitemata District Health Board and a second report from Dr Anja Isaacson, a registered clinical psychologist with the Department of Corrections Auckland Psychologist’s office. The two reports were filed in November. As a result of your subsequent guilty pleas, which indicated a substantial shift in your stance, two updating reports were obtained. I additionally have the usual presentence report.
[21] You are a 25 year old Fijian Indian. You say your family enjoys good relationships. You are the third of five siblings. When you were nine or 10 you were sexually abused by an adult cousin who bribed you to prevent disclosure.
[22] You and your family moved to New Zealand when you were 11. You left college at the end of the sixth form without any university entrance qualifications. You have had various jobs as a delivery driver, a labourer, and a builder. You have been remanded in custody now for approximately 18 months. Before that you were attending a building course at a technology institute.
[23] You have no problems with alcohol, drugs, or your health generally. Initially when interviewed by the probation officer you denied most of your offending but you did express regret for the harm you had caused. The probation officer suggested that late expressions of remorse should be treated with caution. The probation
officer unremarkably identified sexual arousal as being a contributing factor to your offending. You were assessed as having a high rate of re-offending given your then denial and your predatory behaviour. You expressed a willingness to undertake treatment in prison which could lower the risk. Imprisonment was recommended.
[24] Your previous offending were convictions in March 2008 in respect of which you were sentenced to community work and supervision for again obtaining benefits
by deception. There was a sexual background to that, but no prosecution. Two breaches of the community work sentence were subsequently detected. Much of your offending was committed after that sentence was imposed or whilst you were
on bail for it. The Crown has produced a helpful table which shows your first rape was committed in June 2006; the matter for which you were sentenced in February
2007; release on bail on 20 May 2007 with a reporting condition; an arrest for your
June 2006 offending in February 2008 in respect of which you were again released
on bail, conditions of which were no computer use and no internet access, particularly dating sites. Despite those bail conditions Mr Pillai there was further sexual offending by you in March, April, and May 2008, and prior to that offending during the bail to which you were admitted in May 2007. By any stretch of the imagination this offending on bail is a significant aggravating factor.
[25] The focus of the reports from the two health professionals is of course the notoriously problematic s 87(2)(c) factor whether you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual offence if released at the expiry date of your sentence.
[26] I shall summarise, but briefly, the four reports which have been read carefully
by me and by both counsel. Mr Cassidy has doubtless explained the reports to you.
[27] Dr Pillai in three interviews carried out in October obtained a full detailed history from you. He reported some confusion about your sexuality after moving to New Zealand. You became sexually active when you were 19, your first sexual partner being an older woman who had propositioned you. You then seem to have moved into a position of casual contacts at clubs and massage parlours.
[28] Dr Pillai’s first report (at a stage when you denied all your offending) pointed
to the repetitive pattern of your offending, the large number of offences, your willingness to use violence and threats, your promiscuity, and the underlying attitudes, your modus operandi of identifying, planning, and grooming your victims. Absent was any empathy with your victims. All these factors point to a likelihood of
re-offending which in Dr Pillai’s initial view led to the conclusion that you are more likely to re-offend than not. Dr Pillai additionally pointed, and in a preventive detention context weight must be given to this, to some important risk factors which were absent. These positive features were no substance abuse, no chaotic lifestyle, steady employment, and apparently stable relationships with your immediate family.
[29] At a subsequent interview last month Dr Pillai had access to the details of the offending to which you had pleaded guilty. He considered the risk factors had changed somewhat given your willingness to reflect on your offending and some understanding of the effects on your victims. Dr Pillai considered you shared characteristics with sex offenders of a moderate to high risk so far as re-offending was concerned; your frequent offending involving deceit and manipulation suggested an extreme disregard for the harm caused and the lack of empathy; and your selection of pubescent and prepubescent victims and the offending itself involved a degree of control and humiliation (especially the anal and oral rapes) which point to sexual deviance. Dr Pillai’s conclusion was you had to be placed in the category of high risk of re-offending. If the change in your attitude is sustained, with specific treatment the risk could reduce. Your increasing frankness to Dr Pillai in his view allowed for the development of a psychological assessment. Further exploration of your various feelings might open avenues for treatment.
[30] Dr Isaacson’s two interviews in October and November included administering two tests to you. You reported to him between 30 and 40 sexual partners over a five year period. The administered tests were Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, 3rd edition (MCMI-III) and Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire (WSFQ). On the Automated Sexual Recidivism Scale (a standard Department for Corrections test which seems to be deployed in assessing future risk for sexual offending), your risk of re-offending was assessed as medium to low. On the STABLE-2007 assessment the risk was assessed as high because of your lack of
capacity for relationship stability, lack of concern for others, deviant sexual preferences and other factors. Dr Isaccson stressed the ACUTE-2007 test did not indicate risk of re-offending on release, but it highlighted various factors such as rejection, sexual pre-occupation, hostility and victim access which needed to be monitored on release. Dr Isaacson’s conclusion that was you represented a medium to high risk of re-offending which was conservative. The presence of further charges and your young age might raise the risk.
[31] A second interview followed after your pleas. That report, again last month, continued on the STABLE-2007 test, is assessing you as in the high risk category. The report writer pointed to various interpersonal factors which might impede treatment. However, with your admission of guilt the likelihood of you engaging in treatment was considered to be reasonable. The overall risk was medium high, or high.
[32] Mr Williams, in his very fair submissions refers to paragraph 21 of the second Isaacson report which says:
In summary, Mr Pillai presents with cognitive distortions, personality factors and motivational issues which may challenge his ability to meaningfully engage in treatment. However, given his recent acceptance of responsibility and improved motivation to better understand his offending, his likelihood of first engaging with and then benefitting from treatment is considered reasonable. Mr Pillai would benefit from comprehensive treatment programmes that address characteristics of both child and adult sex offending. Without such treatment, his risk of sexual offending would remain.
And similarly from Dr Pillai’s second report:
… This risk of assessment does not take into account the factors in Mr Pillai that may change over time, especially over a period of many years at the time of any proposed release of Mr Pillai to the community. Mr Pillai’s new willingness to acknowledge the offending and his reported insight into the harm he has caused his victims now places him in a position to engage in psychological treatment for which he does have the social and intellectual resources to benefit. If this change in attitude is sustained, offender specific treatment could go some way to reducing the risk he poses to the community.
[33] Cautiously expressed, these conclusions from the two professionals point to the fact that treatment programmes have not been tried and there are grounds for
optimism that they may work to reduce substantially future risk. This is of critical importance to the preventive detention issue.
Purposes, principles, aggravating and mitigating factors
[34] The purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act are not, in my view, pious platitudes to be mentioned in passing. They are clear Parliamentary policy expressions of the objectives sentencing is designed to achieve. In complex and high profile cases they need to be articulated and given weight.
[35] In your case I have the clear view that of the purposes in s 7, holding you accountable, providing for the interests of your victims, denunciation, and protecting the community from you in the future are primary purposes.
[36] So far as s 8 principles are concerned the gravity of your offending, your culpability, the seriousness of your offending, and the effect on your victims, must
be given weight. Nor must I lose sight of crafting a sentence which is not too restrictive and leaves some margin for your rehabilitation and re-integration into the community when you are released in many years time.
[37] Aggravating features of your offending also include the particular vulnerability of all your victims, having regard to their age and their cultural family background. In some cases you professed the desire to marry (an ancient cad’s trick
in Western culture but a potent card to play in the culture of your victims). One victim was lured by a suggestion that she was to meet your mother. The high degree of premeditation is also a significant aggravating feature.
[38] For the young victim who was a member of your family, vulnerability and the breach of trust are of significance. For her the provisions of s 9A(2) would have come into play had that provision been operating at the time of your offending. Nonetheless those aggravating features can legitimately be considered under s 9(4)(a). They are self-evident.
[39] Also relevant to culpability as aggravating features are the threats, the deception and manipulation, the use of blackmail to commit sexual offences, the deployment on occasion of violence, and the sheer breadth, range, and duration of your offending.
[40] Aggravating features relating to you is the fact that much of your offending occurred whilst you were on bail or subject to a sentence. Clearly your arrest and sentence did not deter you.
[41] The only mitigating feature for which you are entitled to credit is your decision to plead guilty to 26 of the 48 offences you have committed. Your counsel fairly observed that this plea related to eight of your 14 victims.
Counsel’s submissions
[42] The Crown seeks as its preferred alternative a preventive detention sentence under s 87(1). Mr Williams points to s 87(4) factors including the pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of harm to the community, the contents of the reports suggesting that there is a medium to high risk of your re-offending, and the initial failure on your part to address the cause of your offending. The Crown properly concedes it is difficult to assess whether the s 87(4)(e) principle of a preference for a lengthy determinate sentence operates in your case because no previous sentence (other than your 18 month remand in custody) has been imposed. The Crown’s summary is that it is likely you will commit another qualifying offence on release. A minimum period of imprisonment of around 10 years is sought.
[43] In the alternative the Crown suggests concurrent sentences adjusted for totality. A search of sentencing authorities have not unearthed any directly comparable cases to this. The Crown suggests a start point of around 20 to 25 years which could be uplifted for offending on bail and reduced for the mitigating guilty pleas. Again a minimum period of imprisonment of near the 10 year maximum prescribed by s 86(4) is sought.
[44] Mr Cassidy, who has done his best for you, is opposed to a preventive detention sentence. He suggests an end sentence in the range of 10 – 12 years so far
as the offences for which you were convicted at trial are concerned. He accepts a similar start point for your other offending before a mitigating discount. Thus a 20 year start point would be warranted. Mr Cassidy submits that on a comparative basis, so far as your level of depravity is concerned, I ought not to exceed a 20 year start point. Your counsel concedes a minimum period of imprisonment is unavoidable. Mr Cassidy points out you have disclosed you were a victim of sexual abuse, that you are willing to address the issues of your offending which reduces the risk of recidivism, and that you have never before been sentenced for sexual offending.
[45] I record in a footnote, which will appear in the final version of these sentencing notes, the various authorities cited to me which I have considered.[2]
The sentence
[2] R v Williams CA91, 79 & 90/00, 31 May 2000; R v Barker CA57/01, 30 July 2001; R v Morris HC Tauranga CRI-2006-70-6060, 24 October 2008; R v T (2002) 20 CRNZ 51 (CA); R v H [2009] NZCA 77; R v Malone HC Auckland CRI 2007-19-9642, 30 October 2009; R v Tipene [2009] NZCA 343; R v P CA176/04, 7 October 2004; R v Kolio CA219/01, 1 November 2001; R v Wrigley HC Auckland S36/02, 6 December 2002; R v Trimble HC Hamilton CRI 2006-79-987, 6 June 2007; R v ARC HC Auckland CRI 2006-92-6004, 29 May 2007.
[46] The sentencing options are either to impose a preventive detention sentence
or a lengthy term of imprisonment. As is apparent from R v Mackrell[3] finite sentences may be imposed concurrently with preventive detention. The purpose of preventive detention, as is clear from s 87(1) and the Court of Appeal judgment of R
v C[4] is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and ongoing risk
to public safety. The availability of extended supervision orders may be taken into account (R v Mist)[5] although in your case not all of your offending was against young children. To put the matter beyond doubt I have not taken extended
supervision orders into account as a reason to reach the result I shall reach.
[3] R v Mackrell (1998) 16 CRNZ 1 (CA).
[4] R v C [2003] 1 NZLR 30.
[5] R v Mist [2005] 2 NZLR 791
[47] There is no disputing that in terms of s 87(2) you are eligible for preventive detention. Turning to the s 87(4) criteria there is certainly a pattern of serious offending - 14 victims over two years with a similar modus operandi. There has been serious community harm. Two of your victims attempted suicide. There are also the psychological and psychiatric reports which indicate a likelihood of you re- offending even though you now admit your offending.
[48] The s 87(4)(d) criterion is more problematic. Although you have been in custody on remand for 18 months it is only over the last three months or thereabouts that you have indicated a willingness to address the causes of your offending. As both Dr Pillai and Dr Issacson observe psychological assessment, treatment and therapy have not been tried and all lie ahead.
[49] Sentencing judges who have reached the view that preventive detention should be imposed have clearly decided against the policy imperative of s 87(4)(e). But it is an important imperative.
[50] Your situation, Mr Pillai, sits right on the cusp. By a small margin I have decided that I shall deal with you by way of lengthy finite sentences rather than preventive detention. My reasons for doing so are as follows:
·Your promiscuous and at times deviant sexual behaviour, both criminal and non-criminal, seems to have been confined to a relatively narrow band of your life from age 19 to age 24.
· There has been no prior history of sexual offending.
·Diagnosis and treatment to address the risk factors identified by the two specialists has not been tried, as the Crown properly accepts.
· You are effectively a first offender and a young man.
·Your immature and selfish refusal to recognise that your predatory sexual behaviour is wrong and that you are ruining young lives is capable of being addressed.
· The inevitable hefty sentences I must impose, together with minimum periods
of imprisonment will, in a temporal sense, not differ markedly from preventive detention. The risk factor cuts in at the end sentence date which will be many years away.
·The critical factor of risk to the community can be much better assessed by the Parole Board 10 or 15 years hence than it can by me today.
· I also give significant weight to the s 87(4)(e) imperative.
[51] Assessing the huge scale of your offending, the number of victims involved, the effect on them, the predatory and premeditated way in which you went about your offending and the need to protect the community, and including that overall assessment of culpability all the aggravating features I have identified I consider that an overall start point of 24 years imprisonment would be justified. That figure reflects all your offending, including the markedly different offending against your young relative. Breaking that down into general but not precise mathematical terms my start point would be in the 22-23 year band with a 12-18 month uplift to reflect in particular your offending whilst on bail where you specifically and deliberately broke imposed bail conditions to continue your modus operandi.
[52] In the exercise of my discretion and without the need to apply in the unique circumstances of your offending any mechanistic approach which otherwise R v Hessell[6] would justify, I consider that you are entitled to a modest discount for your guilty pleas. Of the 48 counts you faced you pleaded guilty to 22 of them. Eight of 14 victims were saved the ordeal of giving evidence. I give you no credit, in terms of R v Hessell to the five s 240(1) charges to which you pleaded guilty on the morning of your trial in July 2009. I note, however, that the remaining sexual counts
to which you pleaded guilty included seven of sexual violation by rape and five of unlawful sexual connection involving five victims. I intend to allow you a 17½ per cent discount for those guilty pleas to be factored into the 24 year uplifted start point which will reduce the end sentence to 19½ years imprisonment. It is appropriate to use all the sexual violation by rape counts, as counsel have accepted, to carry the lead sentence in that figure.
[6] R v Hessell [2009] NZCA 450.
[53] I could reach that result by a variety of methods. I could impose clusters of cumulative sentences on to the trial convictions. Or I could impose cumulative sentences for your post bail offending. Or I could impose cumulative sentences to reflect the serious blackmail charges which for some victims were totally unrelated
to sexual offending. But there is clear authority that what must be paramount in this situation, whether one uses concurrent or cumulative sentences, is the s 85 totality principle. Taking that necessary step back and noting that 19½ years does not go over the 20 year maximum prescribed for rape, I am satisfied that all the categories of your convictions, and having regard to your overall culpability, the aggravating features of your offending, the number of victims involved, 19½ years is an appropriate, although some would doubtless see it as too lenient, end figure.
[54] Reflecting on the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment prescribed by
s 86, the factors of accountability for the harm done to your victims, denunciation, and importantly, protecting the community amply justify the imposition of a minimum term. On a 19½ year sentence the maximum which Parliament allows me
to reach (s 86(4)) is the lesser of 10 years or two thirds. That figure here is 10 years.
I have reflected on whether I should reduce that permitted maximum to further reflect your mitigating factors but I have concluded that I should not. I note that 10 years represents 51.3 per cent of 19½ years. Having thought carefully about the matter and exercising my discretion and having further considered what the Court of Appeal has to say on the topic of minimum terms and totality in R v T[7] I am satisfied that the minimum term is both fair and reflects the totality.
[7] R v T (2002) 20 CRNZ 51
[55] Stand up at this point Mr Pillai.
[56] Now I appreciate that a lot of what I have said may be incomprehensible to you because I have to discuss legal matters to explain to people why I have reached the conclusions I have.
[57] So the effect of all this Mr Pillai will be that you are going to serve a term of
19½ years imprisonment; you will not be eligible for parole until you have served 10 years; and whether or not you are released at the conclusion of those 10 years will depend entirely on the Parole Board and how well you have performed in getting your thinking in order inside jail. It would be still open to the Parole Board, and you need to understand this, to keep you in prison for up to a further nine and a half years beyond the 10 if they have concerns over your ability to re-enter the community and offend again. So much of the solution, Mr Pillai, will be in your own hands and how you use your time in jail and respond to the courses you say you are prepared to undertake.
[58] On the 13 counts you face of sexual violation by rape I sentence you to 19½
years imprisonment.
[59] On the 11 counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection I sentence you to nine years imprisonment.
[60] On the one count of attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection I sentence you to four years imprisonment.
[61] On the one charge of sexual connection with a young person I sentence you
to five years imprisonment.
[62] On the three counts of unlawfully detaining a person with intent to have sexual connection I sentence you to six years imprisonment.
[63] On the 13 counts of blackmail, these being particularly nasty offences, preying on the cultural vulnerability of your victims, I sentence you to seven and a half years imprisonment.
[64] On the six counts of detaining by deception the four counts to which s 241(a) applies, I sentence you to two and a half years imprisonment. On the one count to which s 241(b) applies I sentence you to three months imprisonment. On the one count to which s 241(c) applies you are convicted and discharged.
[65] All those sentences, Mr Pillai, are to be served concurrently.
[66] In respect of the 13 lead charges of sexual violation by rape, being satisfied that the minimum period of imprisonment is necessary and that the Parole Act eligibility period on a 19½ year sentence would be glaringly insufficient, I order , pursuant to s 86(1,) that you are to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. I am satisfied the overall 10 year maximum MPI is appropriate.
[67] Publication of your name was suppressed during and after your jury trial to ensure that your projected trials which lay ahead were fair. Counsel agree there is no need to continue that order. The suppression order is accordingly removed.
[68] Given the contents of the two reports, and you make sure you action this Mr Registrar please, and you too Mr Williams, which refer to suicidal ideas which you have entertained from time to time, I direct the prison authorities to be aware of and alert to your suicide risk.
[69] Take him down.
.......................................… Priestley J
SCHEDULE 1
SUMMARY OF FACTS BY VICTIM
Offending against NB
The offending occurred over the period June to July 2006 at which time NB was a 16 year old student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. A text and online relationship developed between them, during which NB sent intimate photographs to the prisoner at his request.
The prisoner and NB arranged to meet. Upon meeting, the prisoner took NB to a motel where he proceeded to rape her and compel her to perform oral sex upon him. Afterward the prisoner made NB shower with him, during which he washed her genital area with scalding hot water.
Following the incident the prisoner continued to contact NB by phone. He threatened to show the intimate photographs to her father unless she had sex with him whenever he wanted to up until he left for Australia the following April. NB contacted the police several days later.
In respect of the victim NB the prisoner was convicted of counts of rape, sexual violation (oral sexual connection), sexual violation (digital penetration), and blackmail.
Offending against SK
The offending occurred over the period April to August 2007 at which time SK was
an 18 year old student. She also initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. A text and online relationship developed between them.
The prisoner convinced SK to send him intimate photographs of her. SK also revealed personal information about her relationships and her family. Shortly afterward the prisoner told SK that a third person had obtained the intimate photographs. The prisoner told her that this person had threatened to tell her parents
that she had been texting boys and had threatened to beat up her younger brother, unless she agreed to pay him money.
SK made an initial payment to the prisoner of $500. The prisoner continued to contact SK using dual identities and demanding more money. This resulted in SK giving the prisoner more cash, and various valuable items valued at $1,200.
On this occasion the prisoner drove SK to an address in Otahuhu. He demanded that she have sex with him or she would beat up his brother. He compelled her to perform oral sex upon him. Over the ensuing period SK continued to pay money to the prisoner and perform oral sex upon him to meet his demands.
SK’s parents discovered the missing money and contacted the police. SK did not complain of the sexual assaults at the time for fear of the consequences, but did so subsequently when contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim SK the prisoner was convicted of two counts of blackmail, and two counts (one representative) of sexual violation (oral sexual connection).
Offending against MC
The offending occurred over the period May to June 2007 at which time MC was a
22 year old student. She also initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site.
A text and online relationship developed between them.
MC sent the prisoner an intimate photograph at his request. Shortly afterward the prisoner spoke to MC on the phone and claimed to be a private investigator working
for her father. He threatened to disclose to her father that she was involved in a casual sexual relationship (with a third party) and that she had sent an intimate photograph, unless she paid him $4,000 and agreed to have sex with him.
MC met with the prisoner the following day, paid a first instalment towards the demanded $4,000. The prisoner took her to a motel. Once in the motel room she was first compelled to perform oral sex upon the prisoner. He then attempted to penetrate her anus with his penis, but desisted when MC cried and indicated that she could not continue due to pain. The prisoner then proceeded to rape her vaginally.
After the incident the prisoner continued to attempt to contact MC by text and phone making reference to the earlier blackmail. MC contacted the police several days later.
In respect of the victim MC the prisoner was convicted of blackmail, unlawful detention with consent obtained by fraud or duress, sexual violation (oral sexual connection), sexual violation (digital penetration), attempted sexual violation (anal sexual connection), and rape.
Offending against AN
The offending occurred over the period May to July 2007 at which time AN was an
18 year old student. She also initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site.
A text and online relationship developed between them. The prisoner told AN that they were in love and that they would marry.
The prisoner told AN that a third person was threatening to disclose their relationship to AN’s parents unless AN agreed to pay money and have sex with him. Fearing for her reputation, AN agreed to meet with this person (who was in fact the prisoner).
AN met with the prisoner and paid him $100. She was then taken to a motel where she was compelled to perform oral sex on the prisoner and raped by him.
Following this incident the prisoner further blackmailed AN using dual identities by saying that the sexual activity had been videoed. It was again threatened that she must pay money to and have sex with the third person (the prisoner) or the video would be disclosed to her parents.
AN was driven by the prisoner to the same motel where she was again raped and compelled to perform oral sex upon him. She was later driven to a money machine where she withdrew $300 to purchase the video recording. AN was also raped on a further occasion by the prisoner. As a result of one of these incidents AN fell pregnant. The pregnancy was terminated.
AN did not contact police for fear of her parents becoming aware of what had occurred. She was contacted some time later by police as part of the wider investigation.
In respect of the victim AN the prisoner was convicted of two counts of blackmail, two counts of sexual violation (oral sexual connection), and three counts of rape.
Offending against AD
The offending occurred over the period June to August 2007 at which time AD was
an 18 year old student. AD received unsolicited contact from the prisoner by text. A text relationship developed between them. AD sent an intimate photo of herself to the prisoner at his request.
After approximately four weeks of text communication AD and the prisoner met in person. The prisoner took AD to a motel under a ruse. She was taken into a room and raped.
Over the following few weeks the prisoner continued to contact AD. He told her that she had to be tattooed with his name or he would disclose the intimate photograph to her parents. Fearing the threat would be carried out, AD had the phrase “Nickil 4 eva” tattooed on her lower back (“Nickil” was the name by which she knew the prisoner). AD was also raped on a further occasion.
AD did not contact police at the time as she was scared. She was contacted some time later by police as part of the wider investigation.
In respect of the victim AD the prisoner was convicted of blackmail and two counts
of rape.
Offending against NC
The offending occurred over the period June to August 2007 at which time NC was a
16 year old student. NC was purportedly contacted by a number of male and female persons either online or by text, though it became apparent some or all of the identities were being used by the prisoner.
Using one of the identities the prisoner contacted NC by text and phone and attempted to form a relationship with her which she resisted. The prisoner also requested that she send him intimate photographs and have sex with him. He threatened to disclose their relationship to her parents and to go to the Immigration Department and have her family deported unless she complied with his requests. He further threatened to kidnap and kill her.
NC ceased contact with the prisoner (with the assistance of her sister). She was contacted some time later by police as part of the wider investigation.
In respect of the victim NC the prisoner was convicted of two counts of blackmail.
Offending against PM
The offending occurred over the period June to October 2007 at which time PM was
a 22 year old student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site.
A text and online relationship developed between them.
PM sent intimate photographs of herself to the prisoner at his request. The prisoner then claimed that a third person was threatening to post the photographs online and disclose them to her parents unless she paid him $500. She agreed to meet the third person (who was in fact the prisoner) for that purpose.
PM met the prisoner and paid him $500. Some time later the prisoner contacted her again saying that the price had increased by an additional $1,500. PM was given a
set time to raise that amount.
PM met the prisoner with the $700 she had managed to raise. After taking the money the prisoner drove her to a motel saying she had to have sex with him because she was short $800. PM was then raped by the prisoner, after which she was given a time limit to pay the outstanding money. When asked why he was doing this the prisoner stated that PM was being punished for previously turning him down (She having rejected an online advance from him some years prior).
PM borrowed $800 from friends and family and paid this to the prisoner. She continued to pay the prisoner money from this point on to meet his demands.
Eventually her parents discovered that she was paying someone money and took PM
to the police. She did not complain of the sexual assaults at the time for fear of the consequences if her parents found out, but later did so when contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim PM the prisoner was convicted of counts of blackmail and rape.
Offending against FS
The offending occurred over the period September to October 2007 at which time FS
was a 13 year old student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through
a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. A text relationship developed between them.
The prisoner made a number of requests and then demands of FS that she send him
an intimate photograph of herself. When FS refused to do so, the prisoner threatened
to tell her parents of her internet activity unless she either sent him such a photo or purchased him a mobile top up card. FS borrowed money from a friend and purchased a mobile top up card for the prisoner.
FS attempted to cease contact with the prisoner at this point, but he again threatened
to tell her parents, and continued to call her home for the few days following.
FS did not contact police at the. She was later contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim FS the prisoner was convicted of a count of blackmail.
Offending against WG
The offending occurred over the period September 2007 to February 2008 at which time WG was a 12 year old student. WG is closely related to the prisoner and resided in the same address over the relevant period.
The prisoner told WG he had received a complaint from her school and that she would not be able to move to high school, but that he had paid $2,000 to ensure she
was permitted to do so. The prisoner then demanded that she have sex with him or
he would call the police and tell them her father owed him $2,000.
The prisoner took WG to a room and sexually violated her anally. WG estimates that on approximately 10 subsequent occasions she was anally sexually violated and vaginally raped by the prisoner. This occurred under threat of her father being arrested. In April 2008 WG disclosed the abuse to her mother and the police were contacted.
In respect of the victim WG the prisoner was convicted of a count of blackmail and representative counts of sexual violation (anal sexual connection) and rape.
Offending against PS
The offending occurred over the period December 2007 to April 2008 at which time
PS was a 15-16 year old student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner when he texted her using a false name. A text relationship developed between them. The prisoner said that he wanted to marry PS.
The prisoner and PS arranged to meet in December 2007. The prisoner picked PS up from her home and took her to a motel where he proceeded to rape her twice. After this incident the relationship continued. PS considered that she had been “used” and that she should marry the prisoner.
Sexual intercourse also occurred at PS’s home in March 2008 during the Polyfest. In respect of this incident the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the alternative count of sexual connection with a young person. PS was also sexually violated (by way of anal intercourse) by the prisoner on an occasion in March 2008 at his house.
PS subsequently ended the relationship. Her complaint arose after she was contacted
as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim PS the prisoner was convicted of counts of rape (x2), sexual connection with a young person, and sexual violation (anal sexual connection).
Offending against SDa
The offending occurred in April 2008 at which time SDa was a 15 year old student. She met the prisoner through PS who was a friend of hers. After the initial meeting she was told by PS that the prisoner threatened to commit suicide unless she said that she loved him and agreed to go out with him.
The prisoner had contact with SDa on subsequent occasions and the topic of marriage was discussed. On one occasion the prisoner took SDa to a motel which he said was for the purpose of meeting his mother. Once inside the motel room the prisoner sexually violated SDa by digital penetration. In this context the prisoner again threatened to commit suicide unless she complied and referred to the fact that they would marry.
Following this incident SDa ceased contact with the prisoner. Arising from the incident she attempted suicide in August 2008. The offending against SDa came to light as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim SDa the prisoner was convicted of counts of unlawful detention with consent obtained by fraud or duress and sexual violation (digital penetration).
Offending against SDe
The offending occurred over the period June 2007 and May 2008 over which period SDe was aged 15-16 years and was a student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. A text and online relationship developed between them. SDe sent photographs of herself to the prisoner.
At one point the prisoner told SDe that a third person had come into possession of the photographs of her and was threatening to modify and post them on the internet unless SDe paid $150 to a specified account, which she subsequently did.
Some months later SDe sent intimate photographs of herself to the prisoner following his repeated requests. The prisoner then told her that the same third person had come into possession of those photographs. According to the prisoner
the person again threatened to post the photographs on the internet or to inform
SDe’s parents unless she paid the sum of $300 or slept with him.
As SDe did not have sufficient to pay the sum demanded, arrangements were purportedly made for her to meet the third person (who was in fact the prisoner). The prisoner took SDe to a motel where he proceeded to rape and sexually violate her, the latter by way of anal intercourse.
SDe subsequently ceased all contact with the identity of the prisoner she had been corresponding with. Her complaint arose after she was contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim SDe the prisoner was convicted of counts of blackmail, unlawful detention with consent obtained by fraud or duress, sexual violation (anal sexual connection), and rape (two counts).
Offending against AB
The offending occurred over the period March to April 2008 at which time AB was a
22 year old shop assistant. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. An online and text relationship developed between them.
Over a number of weeks the prisoner outlined various elaborate but false stories to AB, inducing her to pay him a total of $10,800 over five occasions. The payments were made as loans but never repaid. AB was forced to borrow money herself to survive. She was contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim AB the prisoner was convicted of five counts of obtaining by deception.
Offending against SN
The offending occurred in May 2008 at which time SN was a 22 year old student. She initially became acquainted with the prisoner through a profile maintained by him under a false identity on an online social networking site. An online relationship developed between them. Marriage was discussed.
The prisoner outlined an elaborate but false story to SN which resulted in her lending him $500. The prisoner later ceased contact with her when she asked for the money
to be repaid. SN was contacted as part of the wider police investigation.
In respect of the victim SN the prisoner was convicted of one count of obtaining by deception.
SCHEDULE 2
TABLE OF VICTIMS
Offence Victims Dates of offences Section Maximum penalty Sexual
violation by rape (x13)
WG, AN (x3),
AD (x2), PM, NB, MC, PS (x2), SDe (x2)
3 February 2008, 1 May 2007 –
31 July 2007 (x3), 1 June 2007 –
31 August 2007, 1 June 2007 – 31
October 2007, 9 July 2006,
4 June 2007,
27 December 2007 (x2),
18 May 2008 (x 2)
Crimes
Act
1961, s
128(1)(a)
20 years’
imprisonment
Sexual
violation by unlawful sexual connection (x11)
WG (anal),
AN (x2 - oral), SK (x2 - oral), NB x2 – oral and anal), MC (oral), PS (anal), SDa (digital), SDe (anal)
3 February 2008, 1 May 2007 31
July 2007 (x2),
1 April 2007 – 31 August 2007 (x2; one representative), 9 July
2006 (x2), 4 June 2007, 18 March
2008 – 18 April 2008, 19 April
2008, 18 May 2008
Crimes
Act
1961, s
128(1)(b)
20 years’
imprisonment
Attempted
sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection
MC (anal) 4 June 2007 Crimes
Act
1961, s
129(1)
10 years’
imprisonment
Sexual
connection with a young person
PS 14 March 2008 Crimes
Act
1961, s
134(1)
10 years’
imprisonment
Unlawfully
detaining with intent to have sexual connection (x3)
MC, SDa, SDe 4 June 2007, 10 April 2008, 18
May 2008
Crimes
Act
1961, s
208(b)
14 years’
imprisonment
Blackmail
(x13)
WG, AN (x2),
AD, PM, FS, SK (x 2), NB, MC, NC (x2), SDe
3 February 2008, 1 May 2007 –
31 July 2007 (x2),
1 June 2007 – 31 August 2007, 1
June 2007 – 31 October 2007, 1
September 2007 – 31 October
2007, 1 April 2007 – 31 August
2007, 10 June 2006 – 31 July
2006,
3 June 2007 – 8 June 2007,
1 June 2007 – 30 August 2007, 1
June 2007 – 30 August 2007, 1
May 2008 – 18 May 2008
Crimes
Act
1961, s
237(1)
14 years’
imprisonment
Obtaining by
deception (x6)
SN, AB 10 May 2008 – 17 May 2008, 9
July 2006
Crimes
Act
1961, s
240(1)
7 years’
imprisonment (x4);
1 year imprisonment (x2)
0