R v Rehu

Case [2015] NZHC 2178 10 September 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-087-603 [2015] NZHC 2178

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN MAIHANA REHU

Hearing: 10 September 2015

Appearances:

SA Christensen for Crown
MA Simpkins for Defendant

Sentence:

10 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v REHU [2015] NZHC 2178 [10 September 2015]

Introduction

[1] Steven Maihana Rehu: you appear before me for sentencing having pleaded guilty to three counts of doing an indecent act on a child.1 Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. So this was serious offending, and the long term effects that what might have seemed only brief incidents several years ago underpin why this sort of offending is regarded as very serious.

Facts

[2] You were aged 15 to 16 years old at the time of your offending. While you were living at a rural property in Torere with relatives, you sometimes stayed in a caravan parked on the property and used this as an additional bedroom.

Offending against first victim (V1)

[3] The first charge relates to offending that occurred during the school holidays on a date between 17 July 2006 and 16 July 2007. The first victim (V1) was visiting the address where you lived. She was then aged seven to eight years. One day, when she was playing on a Game Boy, you approached V1, told her that you had something to give her, took hold of her wrist and led her into the caravan.

[4] When you arrived at the caravan, you lifted V1 onto the bed and told her to lie down. You removed her pants and underwear and proceeded to rub your exposed penis on and around her genital area. V1 continued to play on the Game Boy while this occurred to distract herself because she was terrified and did not know what was happening. You ejaculated over the victim’s stomach, leaving her feeling wet. You wiped your seminal fluid off her with a towel which you threw onto another bed in the caravan. You told V1 to put her pants back on and leave. She went outside and
began to cry.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).

[5] The second charge relates to offending that occurred approximately one week later. Your second victim (V2), who lived with you in Torere was playing with your third victim (V3). V2 was aged seven at the time.

[6] You approached V2 and V3 and asked them to come into your caravan to play a game. The two girls followed you to the caravan. You sat on the bed beside V2 and put your arm around her; you started feeling her shoulders, down her back and on her bottom. You then got V2 to lie down and you lay on top of her; both of you remained fully clothed. You started simulating sexual intercourse by thrusting and rubbing your genital area against her genital area, thighs and stomach.

[7] V2 did not know what was happening and she was too scared to…

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 Rehu

Details

AGLC: R v Rehu [2015] NZHC 2178
Case: [2015] NZHC 2178
Decision Date: 10 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Maihana Rehu appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, to be sentenced for three counts of indecent acts on a child, each carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence by considering the nature and extent of the offending, any mitigating or aggravating personal circumstances, and the discount for the defendant's guilty plea. The court set a starting point of three years' imprisonment based on the significant psychological harm caused to the victims, the multiple complainants, the defendant's premeditated actions, and the breach of trust. The court then considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth at the time of the offending, his diminished intellectual capacity, and his genuine remorse. The court discounted the starting point by 30% for these mitigating factors, and a further 25% for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of one year and seven months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. The court also imposed special conditions upon the defendant's release, including restrictions on contact with persons under 16 years of age, mandatory psychological assessment and treatment, and a prohibition on contact with the victims without prior approval from a probation officer. The sentence and conditions were designed to provide the defendant with an opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community.

Orders