R v Tepania - [2021] NZHC 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-090-2575

[2021] NZHC 2015

THE QUEEN

v

MAAKA JUNIOR TEPANIA

Hearing: 5 August 2021

Appearances:

E A M Mok for Crown

C L Sigamoney for Defendant

Judgment:

5 August 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v TEPANIA [2021] NZHC 2015 [5 August 2021]

[1] Mr Tepania, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of indecent assault for which the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.1 You would ordinarily have been sentenced in the District Court, but a the District Court transferred the proceeding to this Court for sentence because the Crown raised the likelihood that it would seek a sentence of preventive detention. The issue I must decide today is whether you should receive a finite sentence or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention.

Background

[2] You are to be sentenced on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that on the afternoon of 7 June 2019 you were at a large supermarket in West Auckland. The female complainant, who was not known to you, was also shopping at the supermarket. You began to follow her around the supermarket, but she was initially unaware of your presence.

[3] While the complainant was near the bulk food section, you approached her and stood behind her. As she began to move away from the area you reached out with your hand, but the complainant had already begun moving away.

[4] The complainant then went to an area of the supermarket in which frozen meat was being stored in a freezer. You approached her and stood approximately one metre away. Whilst the complainant was selecting meat from the freezer you approached her and you said, “You don’t want the bone”. The complainant replied I guess not” before walking away towards another freezer. You followed her to that area and then followed her to another area of the store. On this occasion the complainant stopped at the fresh meat section. Whilst she was inspecting some meat you touched her on the left buttock with your hand. She turned around and saw you standing behind her. She then walked away without saying anything, but you continued to follow her. She then called out to her husband, but you continued to follow her to another area of the store. When she saw that you had followed her, the complainant asked to speak to a store manager. She told the store manager what had happened and asked for security to be called. As the manager and complainant walked towards another section of the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 135.

supermarket you continued to follow them. The incident ended when security staff spoke to you and the police were called. You denied you had deliberately touched the complainant and said that it was an accident and that you had “bumped into her”.

Finite sentence

[5] There is no tariff…

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 Tepania

Details

AGLC: R v Tepania [2021] NZHC 2015
Case: [2021] NZHC 2015
Decision Date: 5 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Maaka Junior Tepania, was sentenced for indecent assault after pleading guilty. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years imprisonment. The District Court transferred the case to the High Court for sentencing due to the possibility of a preventive detention sentence. The court had to decide whether Tepania should receive a finite sentence or the indeterminate sentence of preventive detention. The court considered Tepania's history of similar offending, the seriousness of the harm caused by his actions, and his potential to reoffend in the future. Tepania has a history of offending involving unlawful sexual activity and violence, dating back to 1989. The court found that Tepania's offending had caused serious harm to the community, as it resulted in females feeling unsafe in public places such as retail stores and supermarkets. Health assessors concluded that Tepania is at high risk of engaging in a qualifying sexual offence in the future. The court found that Tepania's previous efforts to address the causes of his offending had not been successful. The court concluded that a sentence of preventive detention was not appropriate, as Tepania's offending had not increased in seriousness, and he had not offended while on EM bail at Manaaki House. The court sentenced Tepania to 12 months home detention to be served at Manaaki House, with the conditions contained in the PAC report dated 3 August 2021. The court also issued a "second strike" warning to Tepania, explaining the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the "three strikes" law.

The final orders of the court were that Tepania be sentenced to 12 months home detention to be served at Manaaki House, with the conditions contained in the PAC report dated 3 August 2021. The court also issued a "second strike" warning to Tepania, explaining the consequences of another serious violence conviction under the "three strikes" law.

Orders