R v Rimene - [2024] NZHC 13

NOTE: PUBLICATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY

PURSUANT TO S 19(1) OF THE BAIL ACT 2000. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-4

[2024] NZHC 13

THE KING

v

WAYNE RIMENE

Hearing: 16 January 2024

Appearances:

S C Carter and M E Page for the Appellant K J Basire for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 January 2024

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington K J Basire, Barrister, Christchurch

R v RIMENE [2024] NZHC 13 [16 January 2024]

What happened?

[1] On 23 March 2023, Mr Wayne Rimene, now aged 53, was found guilty and convicted by Judge N J Sainsbury, in a Judge-alone trial, of two offences of indecent assault, four offences of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, and two offences of sexual violation by rape.1

The offending and appeal

[2] The offences all arose from an episode on 17 September 2021 in Masterton. Mr Rimene went to the victim’s address around 6 am, looking for a friend. In the living room, he rubbed his body against her body, grabbed her head and tried to kiss her, which she resisted. She went to the bedroom to text her partner to ask for help. He followed her, took her phone and, against her will, put his fingers in her genitalia (twice), used his mouth or tongue on her genitalia, introduced his penis into her genitalia (twice), and connected her mouth with his penis. The offending stopped when the victim’s partner’s father arrived at the address at the request of the victim’s partner. Mr Rimene’s defence was that the victim offered to have sex with him for methamphetamine or to make false ACC claims and that the conduct was consensual.2

[3] In his lengthy reasons judgment, the Judge explained that he found the Crown case provided compelling evidence of the truth of the victim’s allegations and Mr Rimene’s evidence, which he found unconvincing, did nothing to displace that.3 He held beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to any of the sexual activity and that Mr Rimene did not believe she was consenting.4 Mr Rimene has a lengthy criminal record in which the Crown counts 108 previous convictions, including for violent offences. He has attracted 51 sentences of imprisonment and committed 73 offences while on bail. On 15 June 2023, the Judge sentenced Mr Rimene to seven years’ imprisonment for this offending.5

1      R v Rimene [2022] NZDC 8202. These offences are punishable by up to seven years’, 20 years’, and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively: Crimes Act 1961, ss 135, 128(1), and s 128B.
2      At [47]–[49] and [59].
3      At [197] and [202].
4 At [219].
5      R v Rimene [2023] NZDC 13732.

[4] Mr Rimene appeals his conviction on the grounds that the Judge pre-determined Mr Rimene’s guilt, had a closed mind to defence arguments, and erred in his assessment of the evidence. The hearing is scheduled for 20 February 2024.

District Court’s bail…

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 Rimene

Details

AGLC: R v Rimene [2024] NZHC 13
Case: [2024] NZHC 13
Decision Date: 16 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr Wayne Rimene, who was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences, is appealing against his conviction. He has applied for bail pending the outcome of his appeal, which is scheduled for 20 February 2024. The District Court granted Mr Rimene bail, subject to a 24-hour curfew. The Crown appealed this decision, arguing that the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the bail application. The Crown contends that the Judge should not have treated the appeal the same as a pre-trial appeal and failed to properly consider the risk factors associated with granting bail to Mr Rimene.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge erred in his application of the law in granting Mr Rimene bail pending the outcome of his appeal and whether the Crown successfully demonstrated that the District Court’s decision was incorrect. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Bail Act 2000, specifically sections 14, 10, and 12, and whether the District Court Judge appropriately applied these provisions in granting bail. The court also examined whether the grounds of appeal were strong enough to justify bail under section 14 of the Bail Act.

The court found that the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the bail application by not applying the correct standard under section 14 of the Bail Act. Instead of considering whether bail would be in the interests of justice, the Judge applied a test of whether bail would not be contradictory or abhorrent to the interests of justice. The court also found that the grounds of appeal were not strong enough to justify granting bail, especially considering Mr Rimene’s lengthy criminal history, the nature of the charges, and the risk of offending while on bail. The court concluded that the District Court’s decision was incorrect and allowed the appeal, quashing the grant of bail and its subsequent variation to electronically monitored (EM) bail.

The final orders of the court are that Mr Rimene must present himself to the nearest Police Station by 5 pm on Wednesday, 17 January 2024, to be taken into custody. He will then be remanded in custody to serve his sentence, as usual. If his conviction appeal next month is successful, that would of course end his sentence.

Orders