R v Rapana - [2021] NZHC 3407

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT, PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2019-019-3079

[2021] NZHC 3407

THE QUEEN

v

ROMANA RAPANA

Hearing: 13 December 2021

Appearances:

R Mann for the Crown

G Walsh for the defendant

Judgment:

13 December 2021

SENTENCING JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

Counsel/Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor at Hamilton G Walsh, Hamilton

R v RAPANA [2021] NZHC 3407 [13 December 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rapana you have pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection1 and one charge of kidnapping.2 The lead charge is the charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, the maximum penalty for that is a term of imprisonment of 20 years. The charge of kidnapping attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] You are a young man of 27 years of age, but because of what occurred, the inevitable outcome is that a period of imprisonment must be imposed. The main issue that I need to decide is whether I should impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment, you have heard that being referred to as a finite term of imprisonment or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention.

[3] There is a process I must follow in sentencing you. I first address your offending before dealing with your personal circumstances and the sentencing options available to me.

The offending

[4] At about 2:30 am on Wednesday, 15 May 2019, the victim, who was aged 17 at the time and a stranger to you, was walking south on Cliff Street, Raglan, towards the intersection with Bow Street. At the same time, you were walking west on Bow Street towards the intersection with Cliff Street. When you rounded the corner onto Cliff Street you encountered the victim. You greeted her and she reciprocated as you both walked past each other.

[5] Once past her, you turned around, approached her and grabbed her from behind. You told her that you found her attractive and that she should come with you. She declined, pulling away from you and telling you to leave her alone.

[6] You then grabbed her again and stated, “come with me or I will fucking stab you in the neck”. Fearing for her safety, she accompanied you as you led her across

1 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B Crimes Act 1961.
2 Section 209(b) Crimes Act 1961.

Cliff Street to a walking path leading to the Raglan Harbour foot bridge. You told her you had done this type of thing before and that the police knew you. You said that you had just got out of prison.

[7] You led her over the foot bridge to a small fast food café. There you made her sit on the ground. You began to touch her and tell her how…

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 Rapana

Details

AGLC: R v Rapana [2021] NZHC 3407
Case: [2021] NZHC 3407
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, the case of The Queen v Romana Rapana was heard and decided on 13 December 2021. Mr. Rapana pleaded guilty to one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one charge of kidnapping. The court had to decide whether to impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. The court first addressed the offending, noting the threats of violence made to the victim, the impact on the victim, and the victim's vulnerability. The court considered the defendant's previous conviction for sexual offending and mitigating factors such as the defendant's difficult upbringing and traumatic experiences. The court then evaluated the five factors set out in s 87(4) of the Sentencing Act 2002 to determine whether to impose the sentence of preventive detention. The court concluded that the criteria outlined in s 87(2) of the Act had been met, and that the sentence of preventative detention was appropriate to ensure the safety of the community upon the defendant's release. The defendant was sentenced to a term of preventative detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and eight months.

The final orders of the court were that Mr. Rapana would be sentenced on all charges to a term of preventative detention, with the minimum period of imprisonment being seven years and eight months. The court urged the authorities to ensure that the defendant receives the treatment recommended by the report writers to address his issues and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders