R v Reriti
[2015] NZHC 2982
•27 November 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CRI-2014-085-014103 [2015] NZHC 2982
THE QUEEN
v
STACEY RERITI
Hearing: 27 November 2015 Appearances:
D La Hood and ART Garrick for the Crown
S J Iorns for the DefendantSentencing:
27 November 2015
SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J
Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Wellington
Counsel: S J Iorns, Wellington
R v RERITI [2015] NZHC 2982 [27 November 2015]
Summary
[1] Ms Reriti, you have been found guilty of seven charges relating to sexual offending which occurred between 2012 and 2014. The victim of your offending was a boy who was a student at your school.
[2] The charges were one representative charge of doing an indecent act on a young person and six charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, one of which was also representative.1 The most serious charge is of unlawful sexual connection, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
Facts
[3] Ms Reriti, you were the Deputy Principal at Natone Park School in Porirua. You taught primary school aged children, and also lead students in waka ama training. Students would occasionally stay at your house overnight to go to waka ama training in the morning.
[4] In late 2011, you struck up a friendship with the victim through his participation in waka ama. He was 10 years old at that time. Some time, the following year, you collected the victim from near his house and took him to a secluded area. You lay on top of him and kissed him as well as asking him to kiss you, which he did. There followed further incidents in which you would pick the victim up, drive him to secluded areas, where you would park your car. You would then get into the back of the car with the victim and ask him to kiss you. This occurred reasonably regularly and the jury found you guilty of a representative charge of kissing the victim in your car. This constitutes the charge of doing an indecent act on a child.
[5] At some stage, you gave him a cell phone, and the two of you began to text frequently. Some of the texts were extremely sexually explicit. You told him that you loved him. You would also request naked pictures of him. At times, you would get angry with him via text message if he did not reply to you promptly enough. You
would threaten to report him to the police.
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 134(3) and 128(1)(b).
[6] The offending progressed to oral sex. You kissed him, and asked him to give you hickeys which he did. You asked him to touch you, and touched his body including his penis. You then took his penis in your mouth and sucked on it. This gave rise to the initial charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
[7] You also engaged, on one occasion, in full sexual intercourse. On or around
5 February 2014, you took the victim to a Paraparaumu motel. You paid for a room while the victim remained in the car. You took him into the bedroom, and touched him. You asked him to lick and suck your vagina, touched his genitals and put his penis in your mouth, and then put his penis inside you and had intercourse with him. Because a woman cannot be charged with rape, these incidents were all charged as sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.
[8] From 2012 until August 2014, you and the victim met in your car reasonably frequently. In addition to kissing him, which led to the representative charge of indecent assault, you masturbated him, and put your mouth around his penis to perform oral sex. These incidents led to the remaining representative charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. There was also one specific charge relating to oral sex on the victim’s birthday.
Victim Impact Statement
[9] I have received a victim impact statement from the boy you offended against, Ms Reriti. He is now just 14 years old. He states that he has been labelled a liar over the offending and his reporting of the relationship. It has taken a toll on his family, who have all felt the strain and stress of these proceedings, especially his mother.
[10] As you well know, his father passed away during the period in which you were offending against him. He states that throughout the investigation and when he had to come to court to read the text messages between you both, he felt sick at what you said to him and realising how you had controlled and manipulated him.
[11] Intelligently, he identifies that because you were his teacher, you should have known better, and that school should be a safe space. It is clear that you have
disrupted that for him – he notes that his trust, respect and tolerance for female teachers has deteriorated.
[12] Understandably, he is angry at you, Ms Reriti. He feels that his childhood has been taken from him, and struggles to see how anything positive can come out of what has happened. He wants to move on.
[13] It is abundantly clear that your offending has taken a significant toll on this boy and his family. The full extent of the harm which you, through your self-centred actions, have caused him may still not be known. You met this boy when he was just
10 years old and had sexual intercourse with him when he was 12 years old. There is no justification for your actions toward this child.
[14] I also have a victim impact statement from the victim’s uncle. He confirms the devastation the family feels, and that your actions will be a scar on their lives forever.
Personal circumstances
[15] Ms Reriti, you are a 31 year old with no previous convictions. You have been successful in your career as a teacher until this point in your life. You are a fluent te reo speaker and have received scholarships to further your qualifications and career. Despite the overwhelming evidence against you, you continue to insist on your innocence. This has made it difficult for you to be assessed by the pre-sentence report writer. Your lack of acceptance of your offending is shown in your refusal to engage with significant, almost incontrovertible, evidence as to the texts you sent the victim. This attitude will prohibit you engaging with any focused treatments.
[16] Despite this, the pre-sentence report writer notes that you accept the seriousness of your convictions and that you will not pursue a return to employment in the education sector. You also did signify that you would engage with a psychologist in terms of discussing the offending. I can only hope that you do choose to engage with a psychologist to begin addressing your offending.
Sentencing approach
[17] Ms Reriti, the sentencing process follows a standard approach under the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act).2 I must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing, as set out in the Act. I will then assess what would be an appropriate starting point for the particular culpability of your offending, and in doing so I will have reference to the guideline “tariff” case, which is called R v AM.3 What is meant by a tariff case is a guideline judgment issued by the Court of Appeal, which is binding on this court and sets out various different bands of unlawful sexual connection offending and the appropriate general sentences each type of offending might require. This will take into account the particular features of your offending and what is involved.
[18] I will then consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating features personal to you which might require altering this starting point.
[19] In sentencing you, Ms Reriti, I have particular reference to the need for the sentence to demonstrate accountability for the harm done to the victim and the community by your actions, and particularly, to promote in you responsibility for, and acknowledgment of that harm you have caused.4 This is a case in which, as a teacher at a small school, the harm that you have done to that community is very significant, outside of the harm you have evidently caused the victim. Looking at
the principles of sentencing, I also consider especially relevant the need to consider the gravity of the offending, the seriousness of the type of offending and the need to be consistent with other sentences.5 I also have reference to the effect of your
offending on the victim.6
2 R v Clifford [2012] 1 NZLR 23 (CA).
3 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114; [2010] 2 NZLR 750.
4 Sentencing Act 2002, s 7(1)(a) and (b).
5 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(a), (b) and (e).
6 Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(f).
Submissions
Crown Submissions
[20] The Crown submits that your offending should be categorised using the “rape” bands of offending. Utilising R v AM, the Crown identifies the vulnerability of the victim, the extremely serious breach of trust, your premeditation, grooming and manipulation, the scale of the offending and the harm to the victim as aggravating factors. This is said to result in your offending being within Band 3 of R v AM, and warranting a global starting point of 14 – 15 years imprisonment. The Crown also ask for what is known as a minimum period of imprisonment, which is the amount of time which you will be required to serve before becoming eligible for parole, of 50 per cent of your sentence.
Defendant’s Submissions
[21] Ms Reriti, on your behalf counsel submits that the offending in your case is difficult to compare with the offending in the examples described in R v AM. He says that the best approach is to adopt the representative unlawful sexual connection charge, involving connection between the mouth and the penis, as the lead charge, with an uplift for the single charge of vaginal penetration. That would reflect the seriousness of the repeated oral sex performed on the victim. Regardless of what approach is taken, counsel submits that a starting point of 10 – 12 years imprisonment is warranted, which is at the top of Band 2 of the rape bands or at the bottom of Band 3.
[22] Counsel on your behalf accepts that the offending was aggravated by, in his words, your monumental abuse of trust, the element of grooming and psychological abuse, the vulnerability of the victim and the scale of the offending. However, he states that to include premeditation as an element would double count the grooming, and that any harm is simply an inherent part of offending of this sort.
[23] Counsel submits that a personal circumstances discount would be appropriate. He says that these charges have devastated your career potential and that you have a previous good character warranting a 10 per cent discount. He further
suggests that around a 10 per cent discount is appropriate, for your significant mental health problems. Specifically, he points to you suffering post traumatic stress disorder and severe depression as a result of being a victim yourself in earlier years. However, no evidence is offered to support that submission.
Sentencing
[24] I have considered both the Crown and the defence submissions carefully. Determining the appropriate guidelines to follow in this case presents some difficulty. In this case, evidently your unlawful sexual connection charges are the lead offences, in that they carry the most significant possible sentences. Typically, a sentence will be set in respect of the lead offending, and then adjusted to take into account whether that adequately reflects the other offences you have been convicted of. The question is determining which unlawful sexual connection charge is to be taken as the lead charge in this instance.
[25] In R v AM, the Court of Appeal set out separate guidelines for the offence of rape, and of unlawful sexual connection and stated that these were to be looked at in a gender neutral context. The rape bands were specifically limited to the statutory definition of rape, which only includes male offenders,7 penile penetration of the mouth or anus, or violation involving objects. Although that can incorporate offending against males or females, and are in that sense gender neutral, they do not encompass female offending.8 In terms of the guideline judgment and the statutory definitions of the offending, that would suggest that the unlawful sexual connection bands are appropriate.
[26] There is, technically, no distinction between the maximum sentence for sexual violation by rape and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.9 The separation of the types of offending into separate bands is therefore made on policy grounds. Underlying the decision in R v AM are assumptions as to the relative effect on the victim of penetrative acts. There is no discussion of female offending at all.
However, in describing the bands as gender neutral, the Court cited a number of
7 Under s 128(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.
8 Unless a female were to use an object for the purpose of penetration.
9 Sentencing Act, s 128B.
cases which involved female offenders committing unlawful sexual connection by sexual intercourse. In those cases, although comparatively low sentences were adopted as the offending occurred prior to the guidelines in R v AM, rape sentencing standards were applied rather than some lower sexual violation based approach.10
[27] There is, therefore, clearly some intention to not differentiate between offenders of different genders. Just as it is impossible to say that “any one form of non-consensual penetration is inherently a more serious violation of the victim’s sexual autonomy than another”,11 it is difficult to say that forced sexual intercourse is not as culpable as forcing sexual intercourse on another no matter the precise form that forcing takes. This reflects the comments of the Court of Appeal in R v Herbert, who said “children of either gender require protection by the law from sexual exploitation by adult offenders of either gender.”12
[28] Judges can obviously consider an offender’s culpability within sentencing, with a reasonable degree of latitude.13 I consider, in this case, that the correct approach is to follow the Court of Appeal’s rape bands, taking into account the relative culpability of an act which is necessarily not penetrative and has less risk of serious physical harm to young individuals.
Relevant Cases
[29] There are just two previous New Zealand cases involving female offenders and male victims of sexual abuse and both pre-date R v AM.14 Correspondingly, the sentences imposed are low. In R v L, the most recent case, the Court considered that a starting point of seven to eight years imprisonment was appropriate in offending between an aunt-figure and a 15 year old victim, in which she had sex with him once and attempted sex on another occasion.15 There was, at the time, an accepted starting point for rape crimes generally, rather than any lower sexual violation crime.
The Court appeared to have accepted the view that there was no logical basis for a
10 R v Herbert CA70/98, 21 May 1998; R v L [2006] 1 NZLR 29 (CA).
11 R v AM, above n 3, at [69].
12 R v Herbert, above n 10, at 4.
13 R v AM, above n 3, at [79].
14 R v Herbert, above n 10; R v L (CA115/05) [2006] 3 NZLR 291, (2005) 22 CRNZ 381.
15 R v L, above n 14, at [49] (sentence later revised in R v L (CA115/05) CA115/05, 4 September
2006 for unrelated reasons).
different sentencing structure for the “rape” of a male by a female “which can give rise to physical harm, amount to a physical invasion of the body, overpower the complainant's right to elect what happens to his body and can produce emotional harm.”16
[30] However, as noted, there is no distinction between female and male offenders in sentencing.17 I have therefore considered a range of cases following R v AM, involving single rapes amongst wider unlawful sexual connection charges, in similar circumstances to determine the appropriate starting point in this case. I note at the outset that comparing cases of sexual offending is always difficult, but is something that I am bound to do as part of my obligation to be consistent in sentencing across
other cases. The Crown submits that comparable cases include W (CA702/1010) v R, Bates v R and Noovao v R,18 and that the rape Band 3 applies, warranting a starting point between 14 and 15 years imprisonment. However, in my view, those cases all involve more serious offending than occurred in this case, including multiple rapes in Bates, serious physical harm in Noovao, and extensive grooming and more regular abuse. Of those cases, the most similar is Noovao, which involved just two separate
occasions of abuse culminating in one rape against a 13 year old granddaughter figure. In Noovao, the offending was categorised at the bottom of rape Band 3, and the Court of Appeal held that it justified a starting point of 14 years imprisonment.
[31] Mainly because of the lack of serious physical harm in this case, I consider that the offending is better placed around the upper end of rape Band 2. There was just one incident of rape offending, although other unlawful sexual offending stretched over a longer period. Although the victim was young, he was not as young as the victims in some more egregious cases and the harm caused was – although incredibly significant and not to be minimised – less obviously damaging than in
some cases where serious trauma is immediately evident.
16 R v L, above n 14, at [40].
17 See also Director of Public Prosecutions v Ellis [2005] VSCA 105; (2005) 11 VR 287 per
Callaway JA at [8].
18 Noovao v R [2012] NZCA 85; W (CA702/2010) v R [2011] NZCA 529; Bates v R [2013] NZCA
268.
[32] I consider a more appropriate case is P (CA397/2012) v R.19 In that case, the Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of 10 years imprisonment, based on the lead charge of penetration of the victim’s vagina on one occasion, and uplifted by a year for other offending involving sexual violation.20 The Court of Appeal took into account that the act of penetration in that case was not as physically intrusive as full penetration. The same could be said of the equivalent act here, and the rape here was also a one-off incident.
[33] I have also considered other cases involving single incidents of rape.21
Analysis
[34] I turn now to identify the aggravating features of the offending. In my view these are:
(a) Breach of trust:22 I consider the breach of trust here to be very high.
Ms Reriti, you were a trusted teacher and a supervisor of the victim, with his mother allowing him to sleep at your house. You have ruined that trust, and have caused the victim to be suspicious of female teachers generally. Such a breach will be very difficult to adequately repair.
(b)Vulnerability of victim:23 The victim was 10 years old when he met you, Ms Reriti, and you were 30 years old. This type of age disparity creates a significant vulnerability on the victim’s part, one which you should have been aware of, given your frequent interaction with children of that age.
(c) Harm to the victim:24 as noted in R v AM, a level of harm is inherent in the offending. There is no evidence of physical harm. However,
19 [2012] NZCA 488.
20 At [19].
21 R v Te Au [2012] NZHC 2705 at [46]; Penman v R [2015] NZCA 364; E (CA799/2012) v R
[2013] NZCA 678; M (CA625/2014) v R [2015] NZCA 269.
22 R v AM, above n 3, at [50].Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(f).
23 R v AM, above n 3, at [42]; Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(g).
24 R v AM, above n 3, at [44]; Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(d).
the psychological harm to the victim and his family is not insignificant. Although this is only a moderate aggravating factor, I record that your offending has caused deep distress to your victim, regardless of how you perceive your interaction with him.
(d)Scale of the offending:25 full sexual intercourse between you and your victim, Ms Reriti, only occurred once so in that sense the scale of your offending may be seen as less severe than in other cases. Further, the offending did not involve extensive degradation or other indignities as part of the offending. However, looking at the wider context, your pattern of interaction and moderately severe offending did extend over a long period of time. After the victim first attempted to break off your relationship, Ms Reriti, you contacted him again and sought further opportunities to offend. The scale in that sense is significant.
(e) Premeditation:26 the offending in this case was not opportunistic, and you constantly sought more opportunities to offend against the victim. The motel offending was the result of planning and conscious decision-making on your part to find a way to continue your offending. However, premeditation and planning are inherent features of long-term sexual offending, and so in that sense I recognise the need to not double-count this factor given I have recognised the scale of your offending separately.
(f) Grooming/manipulation: This was recognised in R v AM as an element of premeditation.27 In this case it has added significance. You were in frequent contact with the victim via text and Facebook, telling him that you loved him, and playing on the idea that the two of you were in a relationship and that he was a bad boyfriend to you when he did not contact you frequently enough. In this sense, I consider that you groomed him to become accustomed and
acquiescent to your behaviour, and the need to hide it from others.
25 R v AM, above n 3, at [47].
26 R v AM, above n 3, at [37] and Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(i).
27 R v AM, above n 3, at [37].
The text message evidence between you and the victim, with constant questions about whether he loved you, showed you putting clear pressure on him to continue engaging with you, to facilitate your offending against him. You threatened him with the risk of you going to the Police or telling his mother. The extent of your manipulation is particularly clear in the texts you sent the victim around the time of his father’s death. Although manipulation is not a recognised factor within R v AM, it was nonetheless an element of your grooming of him which I take into account.
[35] In this case, I have identified the breach of trust and extended period of offending as increasing culpability to a high degree. I consider the rape in this case to be moderately serious, in the sense that it came as the culmination of a history of grooming and manipulation. It involved inducing the victim to lie to his parents and teachers about his whereabouts and actions. Ms Reriti, your actions in booking a motel for yourself and a 12 year old to stay at were calculated and intended to provide you with a place in which you could offend in a more serious manner than you otherwise could. You hid him so that no one would see you enter the motel together. You then required him to do acts which were well beyond his emotional intelligence, and which constitute what would be colloquially, if not legally, known as rape.
[36] Looking at the overall circumstances of the lead offence of full sexual intercourse charged as sexual violation by unlawful connection, I adopt a starting point of 10 years imprisonment.
[37] The sexual intercourse between you and the victim occurred only once. More frequent was the ongoing kissing and sucking of the victim’s penis which you engaged in, which you would do regularly over a period of months. In the absence of the sexual intercourse, that would be sentenced on an unlawful sexual connection
basis. Having considered a number of cases involving similar offending,28 I am of
the view that at any rate, only a slightly lower starting point would be adopted if the
28 Baldwin v R [2010] NZCA 472; R v Harris CA320/93, 15 November 1993, cited in R v AM, above n 3, at [118]; Aleki v R [2014] NZCA 473; R v Joe [2013] NZHC 1047; R v Wilson [2015] NZHC 1603; Rua v R [2014] NZCA 599.
unlawful sexual connection offending was looked at in isolation, and a significant uplift would have been required to take into account the sexual intercourse which occurred.
[38] In light of the serious ongoing unlawful sexual connection offending which was in addition to the lead offence, I consider an uplift to the sentence is warranted. This is despite the fact that the grooming elements of the offending informed my view of the seriousness of the rape offending, as the individual offences committed against the victim were serious in and of themselves. For example, requiring the victim to lick your vagina, and multiple incidents of sucking and licking the victim’s penis are, as standalone offences, very serious crimes. With reference to the case law on unlawful sexual connection offending involving limited or no acts of penetration that I referenced above, I would uplift the starting point by 18 months imprisonment to reflect this offending.
[39] This brings the appropriate sentence to 11 years six months imprisonment.
Adjusting the Starting Point
[40] Nothing in this case mitigates the offending. Although when asked in Court, the victim said that he did not object to some of the sexual acts, I reiterate the comments of the Court of Appeal in an older case with significant parallels to this one, in which they said “Whether or not there was coercion, physical or otherwise, on her part … does not render the situation any less one of abuse. Given the age of
the victim, no issue of consent can credibly arise …”29 While the offending was not
violent or overtly coercive in nature, these factors do not warrant any discount.
[41] Turning to consider your character, Ms Reriti, there is nothing personal to your character or history which would require me to uplift the offending. In fact, it is submitted that your previous good character should be seen as mitigating the offending. Prior good character can be seen as a mitigating factor, even in serious
sexual abuse cases. Discounts have been applied in cases of those who have used
29 R v Herbert, above n 10, at 4.
their position to facilitate their abuse, including teachers.30 However, those cases have typically identified remorse and a long history of service to the community in which the offending was highly aberrant.
[42] In your case, Ms Reriti, a number of factors militate against such a discount being granted. One, as noted by the Crown is the fact that you cannot receive credit for holding a position, such as a teacher, which allowed you to begin this offending.31 In this case, I accept that you did not use your position to facilitate your offending in the sense of threatening any school-related punishments, nor did any offending take place on school grounds. However, the duration of your offending is a factor against granting you any good behaviour discount. Further, your role as a waka ama teacher was used, later in the offending, to have the victim sleep over at
your house to allow further contact with him. Despite the contributions you may have made to your school and your community, your actions are likely to have devastated a small, tight-knit school which offers support to Maori and Pasifika students. It is to be hoped that they can recover, and the community can rebuild itself.
[43] As in King v R, you also used your good character to depict the young complainant as a cunning liar, and manipulative.32 You attempted to leverage your position as a respectable teacher to undermine his testimony; something the victim said in his victim impact statement impacted him greatly.
[44] You show no remorse, or understanding of your actions. In fact after you were charged, and prior to the trial beginning, you sent another underage former student pictures of your breasts when he texted you asking for them. This shows a stunning lack of judgment. The lack of any appreciation of proper boundaries undermines any claim that your behaviour was somehow a one off and unrelated to your general good character. I consider that giving you any discount for good
behaviour would be inappropriate in those circumstances.
30 Baldwin v R [2010] NZCA 472 at [31]; R v Shepherd HC Palmerston North CRI-2009-454-13,
15 September 2010.
31 See, for example, King v R [2015] NZCA 475 at [31] and [32].
32 King v R [2015] NZCA 475 at [32].
[45] Finally, it is submitted, Ms Reriti, that you should receive a sentencing discount based on your mental health issues. Sentencing discounts for mental illness suffered are typically seen as being appropriate where the offender's diminished intellectual capacity or understanding “materially contributed to the offending”.33
The Court of Appeal in Nelson v R cautioned that “care has to be taken when assessing the causative impact and mitigating effect of mental illness on offending”.34 The Court in that case upheld a small discount for personal factors awarded by the sentencing judge, stating that for the judge to have gone further, evidence directed at the causative impact of the offender’s mental or psychological health on the offending was needed.35
[46] Unfortunately, Ms Reriti, due to your own refusal to accept your offending, there is no evidence of any links between your past mental history, and the current offending. However, I have seen some evidence during your trial from registered psychiatrists, who suggest that you have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive episodes as a result of abuse suffered as a child and as a result of an abusive relationship. The effects of these appear to have been severe, although it may be that a recognition of the enormity of your own offending has contributed to these effects. Your anxiety has made it difficult for you to engage even with your family, and at times to leave your own house.
[47] In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to allow some discount for this as a mitigating feature. In doing so, I take into account that it is likely that these conditions will materially worsen the time you spend in prison, a factor recognised in E (CA689/10) v R as relevant in assessing the weight of an offender’s mental
illness.36 I will therefore reduce your sentence by 12 months, to bring the end
sentence to one of 10 year and a half years imprisonment.
Minimum Period of Imprisonment
[48] After a prisoner has served one-third of their sentence, the Parole Board has
the discretion to assess the prisoner’s risk to the community and determine whether
33 R v Whiu CA195/07 20 December 2007; R v Bridger [2003] 1 NZLR 636.
34 Nelson v R [2014] NZCA 121 at [22].
35 At [28].
36 E (CA689/10) v R [2010] NZCA 13, (2011) 25 CRNZ 411 at [68].
they should be eligible for conditional release. Judges may override this discretion at sentencing by imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, if the standard non- parole period would be insufficient to hold the offender accountable for the harm done, or to sufficiently denounce the offender’s conduct, deter the offending or to protect the community from the offender.37 A minimum period of imprisonment
cannot exceed two-thirds of the sentence imposed.38
[49] In W (CA702/2010) v R, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment of around 50 per cent is almost standard in sexual offending against a young child.39 In R v Gordon the Court of Appeal described the purpose of s 86 as being to confer a degree of reality on a sentence and the outcome where the offending is so serious that release after one-third of the sentence will plainly constitute an insufficient response in the eyes of the community.40
[50] In this case, however, I think that there is limited need to protect the community from you, Ms Reriti. Although it is difficult to determine given your lack of engagement in psychological treatment, your offending does not appear to be pathological or highly likely to be repeated. This seems not to have been compulsive offending against boys, but reflected a perturbing view that you were capable of developing a real relationship with a 10 year old boy. In any event, there seems to be an almost inevitability that you will, as a result of this, have very limited access to children for a very long time. This will, almost inevitably, put a halt to your career.
[51] Although your behaviour was serious, you are a first time offender convicted of one count of unlawful sexual connection, equivalent to a rape charge. Other courts have taken being a first time offender into account in sexual offending in determining if a minimum period of imprisonment is necessary.41 That can indicate there is, as yet, no need for deterrence. There is a very serious need for intervention
in your case, but intervention is possible without a minimum period of
37 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86.
38 Section 86(4).
39 W (CA702/2010) v R, above n 18, at [120].
40 Pomare v R [2015] NZCA 191 at [5], citing R v Gordon [2009] NZCA 145 at [15].
41 Harrison v R [2011] NZCA 642 at [22] and [24].
imprisonment.42 If you have not sufficiently engaged with any available therapy while you are in prison, and do not begin to show some understanding of your offending, the Parole Board is highly likely to decline your application for parole in any case.
[52] Although your offending, Ms Reriti, has some very unusual features, I do not consider the nature of the offending warrants a minimum term of imprisonment to ensure additional accountability, or denunciation.
[53] This must not be mistaken. It does not mean your offending is not incredibly serious. It simply means that the seriousness of your offending is already recognised in the harsh sentence you will receive, and the associated fallout from your offending. In the absence of a real need for deterrence, there is no need to impose a minimum period of imprisonment in this unique case.
Conclusion
[54] Ms Reriti, on the charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection involving connection between your genitalia and the victim’s penis, I impose a sentence of 10 years and a half years imprisonment.
[55] On the other charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, I
impose sentences of eight years imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
[56] On the charge of indecent assault, I impose a sentence of three years imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
……………………………….
Woolford J
42 Taylor v R [2012] NZCA 348 at [23].
0
4
0