R v Taplin

The case of R v Norman Kirk Douglas Taplin was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Wilson, Panckhurst and Venning JJ presiding. The appellant, Mr Taplin, was appealing against the sentence imposed by the Wellington District Court on 16 April 2007, for four counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one count of rape. The appellant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment on the lead charge of rape, with four years on each of the remaining charges to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence for rape. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given his personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offending.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal was required to decide included whether the appellant’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offending warranted a greater reduction in sentence than that afforded by the sentencing Judge, and whether the sentence was consistent with sentencing levels of similar offenders committing similar offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court agreed that the starting point for a contested rape is eight years and that intoxication and an unreasonable belief in consent are not mitigating factors. The Court held that the justification for a higher starting point than eight years meant that the effective reduction was substantially greater than one year. The Court also found that the sentence was consistent with the authorities cited, which showed a pattern of a starting point of eight years for a single count of rape, with an unreasonable belief in consent and the intoxication of the accused not being mitigating factors.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence. The Court found that the sentence of seven years for the total offending of the appellant was not manifestly excessive, even after allowing for his personal circumstances.