[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…

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 Reriti

Details

AGLC: R v Reriti [2015] NZHC 2982
Case: [2015] NZHC 2982
Decision Date: 27 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacey Reriti was found guilty of seven charges of sexual offending against a 10 year old boy, who was a student at the school where she was a teacher. The charges related to events between 2012 and 2014 and included a representative charge of doing an indecent act on a child, and six charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, four of which were representative. The most serious charge carried a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The court considered the submissions of both the Crown and the defence, and determined an appropriate starting point based on the Court of Appeal's guidelines in R v AM. The court then adjusted the starting point based on the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found no circumstances that would warrant a discount for good character or remorse, but did find that the defendant's mental health issues warranted a discount of 12 months. The court imposed a sentence of 10 years and six months imprisonment, with an additional eight years for the other charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and three years for the charge of indecent assault, to be served concurrently. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

Orders