[1] Mr Tareha, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to nine charges under the Crimes Act 1961. In relation to the first complainant, who was aged 87, the charges are:

(a) One charge of assault with intent to commit sexual violation under s 129(2) which has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;

(b)Four charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection under s 128B which has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment;

(c) One charge of injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) which has

a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment; and

(d) One charge of burglary under s 231(1)(a) which has a maximum

penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

[2] In relation to the second complainant, aged 73, the charges are:

(a) One charge of indecent assault under s 135 which has a maximum

penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment; and

(b) One charge of burglary under s 231(1)(b) which has a maximum

penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

[3] On 4 February 2011, you received a first warning under s 86B(1)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2002 for your conviction for robbery. Today you are to be sentenced for stage-2 offences which requires the Court to give you a final warning. I will give that at the end of your sentencing.

[4] The Crown submits you should be sentenced to preventive detention. Given the outrageous nature of these attacks, your offending history, and your failure to have been deterred by imprisonment and past attempts at treatment in respect of past offending, I have given that sentence very serious consideration. But rather than

keeping you waiting to find out what your fate will be, I want to tell you now that for reasons which I will explain, I have decided by a fine margin to impose a lengthy finite sentence of imprisonment instead. It will be a long sentence, and because you have previously received a first warning under the three-strikes legislation, you will serve that sentence in full without parole.

Procedural history

[5] Because it is relevant to the approach the Crown submits I should take, I mention that you were due to be sentenced on 23 September 2014 but sentencing was adjourned on that day and your previous counsel sought leave to withdraw. Your new counsel, Mr Forster, filed an application on your instructions to vacate all guilty pleas but that application was dismissed by Peters J.1

Facts

[6] I turn now to discuss the circumstances of this serious offending.

[7] On 7 November 2013, at about 10.30 am, you were at an associate’s address smoking synthetic cannabis and consuming alcohol in breach of your parole conditions. Shortly after consuming the synthetic cannabis, you…

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 Tareha

Details

AGLC: R v Tareha [2015] NZHC 676
Case: [2015] NZHC 676
Decision Date: 31 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tareha involved the sentencing of Hugh Hemi Tuatua Tareha, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to sexual and non-sexual assaults on elderly women, as well as burglary. The High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, presided over the case, with Justice Toogood delivering the judgment. The Crown sought a sentence of preventive detention, while the defence argued for a lengthy finite sentence, highlighting the defendant's spontaneous offending, fueled by substance abuse, and underlying psychiatric illness. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing the arguments, the court decided against preventive detention, opting instead for a lengthy finite sentence of 12 years and 9 months, to be served without parole due to the defendant's status as a stage-2 offender under the three strikes legislation. The court also issued a stage-2 warning, outlining the severe consequences of any future serious violent or sexual offending.

Orders