R v Tamaiparea - [2015] NZHC 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-013648 [2015] NZHC 74

THE QUEEN

v

MANA TENGU TAMAIPAREA

Hearing: 5 February 2015

Appearances:

K B Bell for the Crown
A J Davis for Defendant

Judgment:

5 February 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GENDALL J

[1] Mr Tamaiparea, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to one count of doing an indecent act on a young person under 16 years.1 That charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] You may be seated until I ask you to stand.

The offending

[3] Turning first to the offending. The offending occurred whilst you were living with your long-time partner, a close and trusted relation of the victim. You met your partner around 20 years earlier whilst in prison for serious violence and other sexual offending, those sexual offences having been committed against a young person who was not a blood relation. You were released from prison in 2001 whereupon you
started living together with your partner until you relocated to Christchurch in 2003.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 134(3).

R v TAMAIPAREA [2015] NZHC 74 [5 February 2015]

The victim lived with you and your partner from about 2008 after Child Youth and Family Services previously raised some concerns about her care. Your previous sexual offending was not disclosed to the whanau. There was therefore no safety plan in place.

[4] On 11 March 2011, the day of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the victim became scared and went to bed crying because of those events. You went in to comfort her, hugged her and told her that it would be alright. You later that night returned, got into bed with her, put your hands down her pyjama pants and began rubbing her vagina area which included you touching her clitoris with your fingers. The victim was too scared to do anything at the time and blocked her ears and started crying. You stopped, said you were sorry and left.

[5] In the following 16 months you offended against the same victim in a similar way on between 10 and 15 occasions. You would go into her room, put your hands underneath her clothing, rub and touch her vagina area (including her clitoris) and also touch her breasts.

[6] In an attempt to resist your unwanted advances, the victim began wearing clothes to bed, including tight ‘skinny jeans’ and a hoody, often with other clothes underneath, all tucked in. The victim was scared of you and your offending only came to light when she told a school friend what you had been doing to her, which resulted in the police becoming involved in August 2012.

[7] You pleaded guilty to this offence on 15 October 2014. A first-strike warning was given to you by His Honour Whata J and two s 88 reports were ordered for the purpose of considering a sentence of preventive detention.

Victim impact statement

[8] Turning now to the victim impact statement, the victim has…

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 Tamaiparea

Details

AGLC: R v Tamaiparea [2015] NZHC 74
Case: [2015] NZHC 74
Decision Date: 5 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tamaiparea involved Mana Tengu Tamaiparea, who was charged with indecently assaulting a young person under the age of 16. The defendant pleaded guilty to the offence, which took place over 16 months, with the victim being a close relative of the defendant. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering whether a finite term of imprisonment or an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention was more suitable.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence, including the harm caused to the victim, the defendant's criminal history, and the risk of reoffending. The court found that the defendant's criminal history, which included previous sexual offences against children, and his ongoing denial of his current offence, despite his guilty plea, indicated a high risk of reoffending. The court also considered the victim impact statement, which highlighted the severe impact the offending had on the victim's life. Given these factors, the court determined that a finite sentence would not provide adequate protection for the community and decided on a sentence of preventive detention.

The court sentenced the defendant to preventive detention, with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years, as mandated by statute. The court acknowledged the severity of the offence and the need to protect the community from the defendant's potential to reoffend.

Orders