NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2018-004-3319
[2021] NZHC 3334
THE QUEEN
v
BILL RIHARI
Date of hearing:
7 December 2021
Appearances:
HDL Steele and S M Murphy for the Crown A S Bloem and J M Kim for Mr Rihari
Date of sentence:
7 December 2021
SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J
Counsel/Solicitors:
Bloem & Associates, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland
R v RIHARI [2021] NZHC 3334 [7 December 2021]
[1] Mr Rihari, as you know, on 17 May this year, a jury found you guilty of 26 sexual offending charges. They were:
(a)two charges of doing an indecent act on a young person;1
(b)two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;2
(c)eight charges of rape;3
(d)seven charges of indecency with a girl under 12;4 and
(e)seven charges of indecency with a girl between 12 and 16.5
[2] I now am to sentence you for those convictions. In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your established guilt.6 Because I was the trial judge, for sentencing, I also am entitled to make factual findings based on the evidence at trial, if consistent with the jury’s verdicts, whether or not adverse to your interests.
I am not bound to accept a version of facts most favourable to you.7
[3] I have read and listened to all that counsel have had to say, both for you and for the Crown. As you have just heard, the Crown recommends a starting point of at least 16 years for your imprisonment, and with a minimum period of imprisonment (“MPI”) of 50 per cent. Your counsel recommend a starting point of 12–13 years’ imprisonment, with no MPI. They additionally claim discounts in a range from 30–35 per cent, or an end sentence of eight to nine years’ imprisonment. The lawyers’ written submissions are detailed and lengthy. I have given them careful consideration. But I do not recite them, because sentencing is an intense exercise of my own judgement. I am not bound by the lawyers’ views; I have to come to my own decision. I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity — the seriousness — of your offending, including your culpability — your responsibility — for it.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 128(1)(b). Maximum penalty: 20 years’ imprisonment.
3 Former s 128. Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
4 Repealed s 133(1). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
5 Former s 134(2). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
[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 Rihari
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rihari [2021] NZHC 3334
Case
[2021] NZHC 3334
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bill Rihari was convicted of multiple sexual offences against young girls, committed over a period of several decades. The court sentenced him to 12 years and 9 months imprisonment, consisting of 9 years and 9 months for historical offending and 3 years for more recent offending. The starting point for the historical offending was set at 7 years, uplifted by 6 years to 13 years to reflect the totality of the offending. The starting point for the more recent offending was set at 4 years. The court applied a discount of 25% to the starting points, resulting in the final sentence of 12 years and 9 months. The court also noted that an MPI was not applicable to the historical offending, and therefore did not impose one.