NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CRI 2021-485-36
[2021] NZHC 2129
BETWEEN
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Appellant
AND
CHAMAN RAWAT
Respondent
Hearing:
15 July 2021
Counsel:
B C L Charmley for Appellant B J Hunt for Respondent
Judgment:
16 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF MALLON J
Table of contents
Introduction
[1]
Factual background
[3]
Victim impact
[10]
Personal circumstances
[11]
District Court decision
[19]
Starting point
[27]
Mitigating factors
[37]
Guilty plea
[39]
Youth
[40]
Good character
[44]
Remorse/amends
[47]
Respondent’s daughter
[52]
Notional end sentence
[54]
Home detention
[55]
Result
[64]
SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RAWAT [2021] NZHC 2129 [16 August 2021]
Introduction
[1] The respondent pleaded guilty to a representative charge of rape and a representative charge of doing an indecent act on a young person.1 He was sentenced in the District Court to 12 months’ home detention, subject to standard and special conditions to apply for a further six months, and $5,000 reparations.2 An order was also made for the respondent’s name to be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register.
[2] The Crown appeals this sentence. It says it is manifestly inadequate because the sentencing Judge:3
(a)applied a starting point that was too low;
(b)applied excessive discounts for mitigating factors; and
(c)erred in imposing home detention.
Factual background
[3] The 11-year-old complainant (R) moved to New Zealand [redacted] with her family. The respondent (aged 18 at the time) [redacted]. He began sexually offending against R shortly after the family’s arrival.
[4] The first occasion took place in July 2008. The respondent picked R up after school. He told her to text her parents that she had late classes. He then drove her to his family’s home, took her to his bedroom, pulled down her pants and underwear, put a condom on and proceeded to rape her for 15 to 20 minutes. Afterward he said “You’re not going to tell your mum and dad about this are you?”
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a) (maximum penalty 20 years’ imprisonment) and 134(3) (maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment).
2 R v Rawat [2021] NZDC 9261 (Judge Davidson).
3 The Crown brings the appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 246(1) and 247(1)(c).
[5] A month later, he and R were in R’s bedroom. The respondent showed her pornographic videos then pushed her onto her bed, climbed on top and kissed her for 10 minutes.
[6] A month later, the respondent was staying the night at R’s family’s home. Around midnight he went to the couch where R slept, lay on top of her and masturbated. He ejaculated onto her torso then told her to go and clean herself up.
[7] In April 2009, when R was 12 years old and the respondent was 19, the respondent drove R to his family’s workplace. During the car ride he said how much…
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 Solicitor-General v Rawat
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Solicitor-General v Rawat [2021] NZHC 2129
Case
[2021] NZHC 2129
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Crown appeals the sentence of the respondent, who was convicted of multiple charges of rape and indecent acts against an 11-year-old girl. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of 12 months' home detention, subject to standard and special conditions, a further six months, and reparations of $5,000. The Crown submits the sentence is manifestly inadequate for three reasons: the starting point was too low, the discounts for mitigating factors were excessive, and home detention was inappropriate. The High Court finds that the starting point was lenient but within the available range. The discounts for mitigating factors were excessive but not so much as to render the sentence manifestly inadequate. The Judge was aware of the statutory presumption that a person convicted of a sexual violation must be sentenced to imprisonment unless particular circumstances apply. The Judge was satisfied that those circumstances applied in this case, given the youth of the offender, the passage of time, and the impact of imprisonment on his young daughter. The appeal is dismissed.