IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2016-085-002938
[2019] NZHC 234
THE QUEEN
v
ALOSIO TAIMO
Hearing:
22 February 2019
Appearances:
Jasper Rhodes and Charlie Piho for the Crown Panama Le’au’anae and Tua Saseve for the Defendant
Judgment:
22 February 2019
SENTENCING REMARKS OF MOORE J
R v TAIMO [2019] NZHC 234 [22 February 2019]
Introduction
[1] Alosio Taimo, at the age of 56, you appear for sentence having been convicted of 95 charges of sexual offending committed against 17 boys.
[2] On 24 October last year, after several days of deliberation following a nine- week trial, the jury in your trial returned verdicts of guilty on the following charges:
(a)25 counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;1
(b)20 counts of committing an indecent act on a child under 12;2
(c)32 counts of indecent acts on a young person under 16;3
(d)7 counts of indecency with a boy under 12;4 and
(e)11 counts of indecency with a boy between 12 and 16.5
[3] Your offending, however it is viewed, is unprecedented in this country. The sheer scale is extraordinary, whether it is measured in the number of charges, their seriousness, the number of victims, their tender age, their vulnerability, the years over which your offending spanned; all committed in the context of gross breaches of trust: boys who looked up to you; parents who admired and trusted you and turned to you for help and embraced you into their families; teachers and staff who never in their wildest dreams thought you were capable of doing these dreadful things. Almost certainly that sense of trust and the standing in which you were held by so many allowed you to commit these crimes over the nearly 30 years you did because you knew the boys would never dare complain and even if they did they would never be believed; the words of a boy pitched against the reputation of a respected senior community leader.
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(b) and 128B(1); the maximum sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment. However, four of these counts arose prior to 1 September 1993, when the maximum sentence was 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 132(3); the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 134(3); the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
4 Section 140 (repealed); the maximum penalty was 10 years’ imprisonment.
5 Section 140A (repealed); the maximum penalty was seven years’ imprisonment.
[4] As you know, the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. Your lawyer, Mr Le’au’anae, presses for a finite sentence. And so I will approach your sentencing in two stages:
(a)First, I shall fix the finite sentence and corresponding minimum period of imprisonment (MPI); and
(b)Then I shall decide whether you should be subject to preventive detention and if so, the length of the MPI to accompany that sentence.
[5] If I decide against preventive detention, you will receive the finite sentence I determined at the first stage.
[6]…
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 Taimo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Taimo [2019] NZHC 234
Case
[2019] NZHC 234
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Alosio Taimo was convicted on 95 charges of sexual offending against 17 boys. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Taimo, considering both a finite sentence and the possibility of preventive detention. The court first calculated a starting point for the finite sentence, taking into account the seriousness and scale of the offending, the vulnerability of the victims, and the breach of trust. The court determined a starting point of 23 years' imprisonment. The court then considered mitigating factors such as Taimo's limited remorse, his own history of abuse, and his health, which led to a discount of around four to five percent, resulting in a finite sentence of 22 years' imprisonment. The court also considered the need for a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) to hold Taimo accountable for his crimes, deciding on a 10-year MPI. In deciding on preventive detention, the court considered factors such as the pattern of serious offending, the seriousness of the harm, and the risk of reoffending. The court concluded that while Taimo presented a significant risk, the potential for rehabilitation and the imposition of an extended supervision order and registration under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 provided sufficient protection for the community, and therefore did not impose preventive detention. The final orders included a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment with a 10-year MPI and mandatory registration under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.