R v Rameka - [2012] NZHC 2457

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2010-063-3124 [2012] NZHC 2457

THE QUEEN

v

MARAMA RAMEKA

Hearing: 21 September 2012

Counsel: A J Gordon for Crown
J N Briscoe for Prisoner

Judgment: 21 September 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 740, Rotorua
Davys Burton, PO Box 248, Rotorua

R V RAMEKA HC ROT CRI 2010-063-3124 [21 September 2012]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rameka, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] Marama Rameka, you were convicted on 30 July 2012, after a jury trial on three counts of indecent assault and two of rape. All offending involved the same victim, a female member of your extended family.

[3] The indecent assaults occurred in the period between 1966 and 1971, when the victim was at primary school. The rapes took place between 1972 and 1976, while she was either at intermediate or secondary school. All were representative charges based on evidence from the victim that they occurred on a number of occasions over that period of time.

[4] You were acquitted on one other charge of rape that the victim alleged occurred at some time between 1991 and 1992, when she was about 30 years old. My view is that the jury must have had a reasonable doubt about whether you had a reasonable belief that she was consenting to sexual intercourse at that time. That view is consistent with the jury’s acceptance of the victim’s evidence on other counts.

[5] At the relevant times, the maximum penalty for rape was 14 years imprisonment and, for indecent assault, 10 years. That contrasts with a maximum penalty of 20 years for rape under the current law. Because you offended at a time when the penalty was lower, I must sentence you on that basis.

[6] I am obliged to treat you in the same way that you would have been sentenced had you come before the Courts at that time. Necessarily, that means you will receive a significantly lower sentence than would otherwise have been applied,
based on current sentencing levels.[1]

Facts

[1] See, for the present regime, R v AM(CA27/2009) [2010] 2 NZLR 750 (CA).

[7] The victim gave evidence about a prolonged period of sexual abuse that occurred at times when you and she lived in a common residence, also occupied by other members of your whanau. The offending moved from rubbing her breasts, to touching her outside her vagina and to oral sexual connection, during the period she was at primary school. When she was at intermediate and secondary schools, your offending graduated to rape. It is clear from the jury’s verdicts that they accepted those aspects of the victim’s evidence.

[8] It is unnecessary for me to go into greater detail for present purposes. I do, however, need to make a couple of comments about the nature and extent of…

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 Rameka

Details

AGLC: R v Rameka [2012] NZHC 2457
Case: [2012] NZHC 2457
Decision Date: 21 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Marama Rameka was heard and decided by the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry. The defendant, Marama Rameka, was convicted on three counts of indecent assault and two counts of rape, all of which involved the same victim, a female member of his extended family. The indecent assaults occurred between 1966 and 1971, while the victim was in primary school, and the rapes took place between 1972 and 1976, while the victim was either in intermediate or secondary school.

The legal issues in this case revolved around sentencing the defendant based on the maximum penalties available at the time of the offences, which were lower than the current maximum penalties. The court had to consider the aggravating factors of the case, such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the emotional harm suffered by the victim, the breach of trust inherent in the offending, and the vulnerability of the victim at the time. The court also had to consider mitigating factors, such as the defendant's age, physical condition, and the likelihood of him reoffending.

The court decided that a starting point of eight years imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the aggravating factors and sentencing levels of the time. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's age and physical condition, and decided to reduce the sentence by 20%, resulting in a sentence of six years and six months imprisonment on the lead charges of rape. The sentences for the indecent assaults were four years imprisonment each, but all sentences were to run concurrently, so the effective sentence was six years and six months.

In summary, the court sentenced Marama Rameka to six years and six months imprisonment for the two charges of rape and four years imprisonment for each of the three charges of indecent assault, with all sentences running concurrently. The court took into account the maximum penalties available at the time of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, and the need to denounce the defendant's conduct, deter him and others from committing similar offences, and hold him accountable for his actions.

Orders