R v Ranga - [2014] NZHC 2583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-075-000482 [2014] NZHC 2583

THE QUEEN

v

LEONARD JOHN RANGA

Hearing: 21 October 2014

Appearances:

S N Cameron for the Crown
R P Boot for the Defendant

Sentencing

21 October 2014

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Almao Douch, Barristers and Solicitors, PO Box 19173, Hamilton
Gavin Boot Law, PO Box 19043, Hamilton.

R v LEONARD JOHN RANGA [2014] NZHC 2583 [21 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Leonard John Ranga, you appear for sentence on one charge of doing an indecent act on a child under 12 pursuant to s 132(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. On
20 June 2014 you were found guilty by jury verdict following a two day trial heard in front of Judge Ruth in the Hamilton District Court. The maximum penalty for that offence is ten years imprisonment.

[2] You were initially to be sentenced in the District Court. The Crown noted that you were eligible for preventive detention and on 8 September 2014 Judge Ruth accordingly declined jurisdiction to pass sentence and transferred your case to this Court so that a sentence of preventive detention could be considered.1

Background

[3] Mr Ranga, in the early hours of 31 March 2013 you arrived back at your accommodation in Thames after drinking heavily at a local hotel. You were paying board to stay at this address. The occupant’s six year old grandson, the victim in this matter, was staying for the weekend, and so too was your relative, the relative’s partner, and their 12 year old daughter. The latter three slept in your normal bedroom, meaning you had moved into a different room for the weekend. While you were out drinking the victim went into this room and went to bed.

[4] Once you returned to the address you climbed into the bed with the sleeping child. You kissed the victim on the cheek, put your hand inside his jeans and touched his genitals. The victim woke up. You said you thought the boy was your relative’s 12 year old daughter. You asked the victim whether he wanted you to stop touching him. He said yes, but you continued to touch his genitals.

[5] The victim began to cry and climbed out of bed. His crying was heard by his grandfather who came to investigate and found you inside the bedroom with the victim. When interviewed by the Police soon after the offending you said you did not know if the incident happened or not and that you were too drunk to remember
what happened that night.

1 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 114(2).

Victim impact statement

[6] There is a victim impact statement from the victim’s mother. She states that since the offending the boy has developed a fear of sleeping on his own and has become easily anxious and nervous, especially at night. Both the son and his mother have lost trust and an innocence has been lost. It is said the victim is making…

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 Ranga

Details

AGLC: R v Ranga [2014] NZHC 2583
Case: [2014] NZHC 2583
Decision Date: 21 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr Leonard John Ranga was found guilty of committing an indecent act on a child under 12, pursuant to s 132(3) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown noted that Mr Ranga was eligible for preventive detention and accordingly, the District Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the High Court of New Zealand. The legal issues before the Court were whether a finite sentence or a sentence of preventive detention should be imposed on Mr Ranga. The Court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, the victim impact statement, and the pre-sentence report in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court found that although Mr Ranga had a history of offending in this manner, it was not sufficient to justify an indeterminate period of imprisonment. The Court also considered the health assessor reports which suggested that there was no firm information suggesting a strong likelihood of committing serious offences in the future. The Court was concerned by Mr Ranga's alcohol abuse and considered it to be a significant factor increasing his risk of offending in the future. However, the Court was swayed by the fact that Mr Ranga had not been invited in the past to engage in any treatment directed towards his sexual offending and that he was willing to engage in specialised treatment. The Court concluded that it would be premature and disproportionate to sentence Mr Ranga to preventive detention at this stage and imposed a finite sentence of two years imprisonment with special conditions.

Mr Ranga was sentenced to a term of two years imprisonment on the following special post-release conditions: (a) to reside at an approved address and not to move without the prior written consent of a Probation Officer; (b) not to associate with any person under the age of 16 years without the prior written consent of a Probation Officer; (c) to undertake employment as approved by a Probation Officer; (d) to be assessed for the SAFE programme and if suitable attend the SAFE programme to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and service provider; (e) to undertake any such assessment, counselling, treatment or programme designed to address offending behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and service provider; and (f) to undertake any other such assessment, counselling, treatment or programme designed to meet his alcohol abuse problems. The special conditions apply for a period of six months post the sentence expiry date.

Orders