R v Te Huia - [2013] NZHC 3520

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANTS, INCLUDING NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP OF COMPLAINANTS WITH PRISONER, PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-096-1184 [2013] NZHC 3520

THE QUEEN

v

CRAIG TE HUIA

Hearing: 19 December 2013

Counsel: M G Wilkinson for Crown
K F Preston for Prisoner

Sentence: 19 December 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF GODDARD J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for Crown
Public Defence Service, Wellington for Defendant

R v TE HUIA [2013] NZHC 3520 [19 December 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Huia, you appear for sentencing on one charge of sexual violation by rape contrary to s 128(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for this charge is 20 years’ imprisonment. The charge arose in relation to an incident in
2005. On 8 November 2013, the District Court declined jurisdiction to sentence you and transferred your sentencing to the High Court so that the imposition of the indefinite sentence of preventive detention could be considered.

[2] Also relevant to your sentencing today is that, on 20 March 2012, you were sentenced on four charges of sexual offending in respect of three separate incidents relating to three separate victims, all unrelated to the offending for which I am to sentence you today. Those separate incidents occurred in 1995, 2002 and 2010.

[3] I can say at the outset that, having considered the matter of an indefinite sentence with some care and invited submissions from counsel for the Crown and your counsel on that subject, I am not going to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The Crown does not seek it and, in light of the two psychiatric reports, it is not appropriate in your case. I will outline my reasons for that conclusion later in the sentencing.

Current offending

[4] I turn now to your offending for which I sentence you today. At the time, you and your two children were living with the victim and her family. The victim was celebrating her 18th birthday. She was put to bed because she was intoxicated. You yourself were very intoxicated and that has been a consistent theme throughout all of your sexual offending. You entered the victim’s bedroom and got into her bed. You removed her pants and her tampon, lifted her top and began kissing her neck and collar bone. She awoke and began to cry. You raped her while she cried, only stopping after she asked you about your partner. At the time she did not wish to
make a complaint to the police for the sake of your children. To your credit, when you were ultimately charged with this offending, you pleaded guilty and that has to

be taken into account. You accept your offending but say you can only remember

“bit and pieces” of what happened.

Victim impact statement

[5] The victim refers to you as someone “I used to love dearly and trust completely”. 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 Te Huia

Details

AGLC: R v Te Huia [2013] NZHC 3520
Case: [2013] NZHC 3520
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Craig Te Huia, who was sentenced for sexual violation by rape, a charge under section 128(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, with a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. Te Huia was previously sentenced for multiple sexual offences against three separate victims in 2012. The court considered imposing preventive detention but ultimately decided against it based on psychiatric reports suggesting the risk could be mitigated with treatment and supervision. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the recent rape charge, taking into account the totality principle, which requires considering all relevant offending together.

The legal issues centred on the application of the totality principle in sentencing for multiple offences and the appropriateness of a preventive detention sentence. The court needed to balance the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation while considering the offender's personal circumstances and the harm caused to the victims. The court also had to determine whether preventive detention was warranted based on the risk of future offending, considering expert psychiatric assessments and the potential for reformative treatment.

Goddard J decided not to impose preventive detention, finding that treatment and supervision could mitigate the risk of reoffending. The court adopted a starting point of eight years' imprisonment for the current offence, uplifted by six years and three months to reflect the totality of Te Huia's offending. The sentence was further reduced by 5% for remorse and 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in an overall sentence of approximately 10 years. An additional 1 year and 10 months was imposed to reflect the difference in sentencing if the totality principle had not applied. A minimum period of imprisonment of half the sentence, or 5 years, was also imposed to ensure accountability and denouncement of the offending.

The final orders include a sentence of approximately 10 years, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 5 years, to be served concurrently with the previous sentence. This ensures the total sentence represents the overall criminality of the offending and the offender, while providing an opportunity for reformative treatment prior to release.

Orders