R v Taakimoeaka - [2014] NZHC 1654

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S
203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2013-006-000322 [2014] NZHC 1654

THE QUEEN

v

PENISIMANI TAAKIMOEAKA

Counsel:
J M Webber for Crown

R A Harrison for Prisoner

Sentence:

18 July 2014

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Taakimoeaka, you appear for sentence in relation to five charges:

(1) Three charges of indecent assault.1 The maximum penalty for these

offences is seven years’ imprisonment;

(2) Assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape.2 The

maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment; and

(3) Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.3 The maximum

penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 135.
2      Section 129.
3      Section 128B.

R v TAAKIMOEAKA [2014] NZHC 1654 [18 July 2014]

[2] You were found guilty of these charges by a jury in the Blenheim District Court. The District Court Judge has transferred your case to this Court so that a sentence of preventive detention can be considered.

[3] I have carefully considered a sentence of preventive detention. I have, however, concluded that a long finite sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for you. I will therefore not be sentencing you to preventive detention.

[4] In sentencing you, I shall explain: (1) your offending;
(2) your previous convictions;

(3) the starting point I have adopted;

(4)the adjustments I have made to the starting point to reflect the totality of your offending and your previous convictions;

(5) your personal circumstances;

(6) why I am not imposing a sentence of preventive detention;

(7) the minimum period of imprisonment that you must serve; and

(8) your final sentence.

Your offending

[5] In March last year you entered a home in Picton at 3.30 am by climbing through a window. Two 16 year old girls were asleep in one of the bedrooms of the house. You took one of those girls into a spare room and placed her on a bed and inserted your finger into her vagina. You took her into that room for the purposes of raping her. She managed to escape back to the bedroom which she shared with the

second victim. You followed her back into that room where you groped the thigh of the second victim. You only stopped your offending when a male occupant of the house came into the room in response to the girls’ screams.

[6] I have read the victim impact statements written by the young women who you attacked. It is clear they have been emotionally devastated by your offending.

Your previous relevant convictions

[7] One night in March 2005 you engaged in serious sexual offending, which resulted in you being convicted of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, rape and attempted sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. Your victim on that occasion was also a vulnerable 16 year old girl. You broke into the home where she…

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 Taakimoeaka

Details

AGLC: R v Taakimoeaka [2014] NZHC 1654
Case: [2014] NZHC 1654
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Blenheim Registry, Collins J delivered a sentencing decision in the case of The Queen v Penisimani Taakimoeaka. Taakimoeaka had been found guilty of multiple charges, including three counts of indecent assault, assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape, and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The court considered the maximum penalties for each offence, which ranged from seven years to 20 years imprisonment. The Blenheim District Court had found Taakimoeaka guilty, and the case was transferred to the High Court for consideration of a potential preventive detention sentence. However, Collins J decided against preventive detention, opting instead for a lengthy determinate sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment. The court considered the nature and severity of Taakimoeaka's offending, his previous convictions, and his personal circumstances in reaching its decision. It determined that a minimum of four years imprisonment was necessary to hold Taakimoeaka accountable, denounce his conduct, deter others from similar offences, and protect the community. Ultimately, the court sentenced Taakimoeaka to seven and a half years imprisonment for the lead offence, with a concurrent five and a half years for sexual violation and 12 months for the indecent assaults, all to be served concurrently. The court also cancelled Taakimoeaka's community work sentence and remitted his outstanding fines.

Orders