R v Rerekura [2017] NZDC 13501 (22 June 2017)

Last Updated: 13 November 2017

EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA

CRI-2016-063-000970 [2017] NZDC 13501

THE QUEEN

v

_{SAUL REREKURA}

Hearing:	22 June 2017
Appearances:	C Macklin for the Crown A Schulze for the Defendant
Judgment:	22 June 2017

_{NOTES OF JUDGE A J S SNELL ON SENTENCING}

[1] Mr Rerekura, you are for sentence today on one charge of sexual violation by rape. You were found guilty following a Judge alone trial in May this year. That charge comes with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

[2] In relation to the relevant background to this matter, on the evening of

18 March, the victim was drinking at [name of bar deleted] in Taupo. She had been preloading and was intoxicated. At approximately 2.30 am on [date deleted] March, she left the bar. She was in the company of two friends. She was clearly very intoxicated, but as your counsel has said, she was capable of talking, she was capable of walking. You were present in the vicinity and I agree with your counsel, there is nothing to suggest that you were there for any other reason other than a lawful one at that time. However, when you saw her, you took an interest in her. A short time after

_{she left the bar, her friends left her, you approached her and you offered to assist her}

R v SAUL REREKURA [2017] NZDC 13501 [22 June 2017]

with a ride home in your vehicle. You said that was parked a few blocks away at the

Countdown supermarket. She agreed to that and we all saw the footage of the two of you walking through various alleyways and lanes towards the supermarket where your vehicle was said to be. When she arrived at that area, she asked where your vehicle was. Your behaviour changed. That was when the two of you were at the top of the hill that exits north from Taupo. You grabbed her and dragged her into the upper level of the riverside reserve. You took her some distance into the reserve, laid her on the ground and raped her. You then took hold of her and took her down to the lower level of the reserve and this was all documented during the course of your hearing by way of photographs and tracks and various other evidence that we saw during the course of your hearing. Several times during that period, you dragged her into bushes and had her sit down being quiet because I suspect you thought that other people may locate you. Whenever she started to yell or plead to be let go, you covered her mouth with your hand. You made threats to kill her by suffocation or strangulation.

[3] You escorted her further towards the Cherry Island end of the reserve in that direction and eventually you reached the water well before that area and you instructed her to go into the water and wash her genitalia. The reason for this was because you were forensically aware and you wanted to remove any traces that you had had sexual intercourse with her. She removed her underwear and entered the water to wash herself. When she got out of the water, you approached her. You placed your hand between her legs, felt her genitalia and then ordered her to back in the water and wash herself again. She did so with you telling her that she had to do it properly otherwise she would have to do it again. When you were satisfied that she had washed herself properly, you took hold of her and walked her back towards the control gate bridge. The total time is not certain that you had her with you, but it must have been for around two to two and a half hours which involves, in my view, a significant period of detention where you had her restrained with you.

[4] As soon as she was able to get away from you, she made contact with her friends and the police. She suffered a number of injuries by way of abrasions and bruising to her arms and legs from being scratched and bruised going through the undergrowth.

[5] Now you come before this Court with a significant list of previous convictions. I think that there are 109 of them. It is true that there are no sexual offences and there is no history at all of sexual offending by you, but you have an aggravated assault in

2015, an assault with intent to injure in 2011, and a male assaults female in 2011 and

2010.

[6] I have a victim impact statement and she says that she has not only been physically traumatised but emotionally and mentally traumatised as well. She says the whole experience was degrading. She comments that she has never met you and did not know you even existed before this night, and she says that in the aftermath of this, she has had thoughts of suicide and indeed has had significant difficulties adjusting to the psychological damage that you have caused her.

[7] I have a pre-sentence report dated 15 June. That indicates that you declined to be involved in the preparation of that report. You were playing cards and did not want to assist the report writer. The report has simply been prepared on your history and it recommends imprisonment. It cannot give any insight as to whether you are remorseful or showed empathy or insight.

[8] The Crown submit that this offending falls within band 2 of the tariff case of R v AM.1 They point to premeditation, detention and vulnerability and submit a starting point of eight to 10 years imprisonment. As your counsel indicated in his submissions today, for slightly different reasons, he agrees with the assessment as being within band 2 of R v AM. That is a band that covers a starting point of between seven and 13 years imprisonment and he says too that this has a starting point of eight to 10 years imprisonment.

[9] In terms of the purposes of sentencing, I need to hold you accountable for your offending, I need to uphold the interests of the victim of this offence, and I need to denounce your offending and deter others from behaving in a similar way. I recognise that I must sentence you consistently with appropriate sentencing levels for similar

_{offending. I must take account of the effect of this offending on the victim, which has}

1 R v AM (CA27/2009) [2010] NZCA 114

been dramatic. I also must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in all of the circumstances in accordance with the hierarchy of sentences available to me.

[10] In terms of setting a starting point, it is my view that the tariff case of R v AM is appropriate. Band 2 is where this sits. That gives a starting point between seven and 13 years. In my view, there is a level of premeditation by you, but I accept it occurs very much from once you met this complainant. There can be no suggestion that that was what you had intended, so it was opportunistic that you met her but from that point onwards, I think that you had it in mind to lure her to a secluded area of Taupo before you raped her.

[11] Secondly, she was vulnerable and the reality is, is that she was drunk. She was a female. She was less physically able to resist you and you took advantage of that, and while I accept your counsel’s submission that she was capable of thought and capable of walking and speaking, she was certainly very heavily intoxicated and less capable than somebody who was sober.

[12] I take into account the fact that during the course of this ordeal not only did you rape her, but you then detained her and that that detention involved threats to kill with you placing your hand over her mouth and threatening to suffocate her. I take into account that there were further degrading aspects of this assault. They were with your requirement of the victim to go into the river to wash her genitalia, to be inspected by you and then forced to wash her genitalia again because you were forensically aware and wanted to try and erase all traces of your semen from her. That was not only degrading to her, but it was also a continuation of the overall domination that you had over her in this incident.

[13] I finally take into account the harm which includes fully what was in the victim impact statement in this case. There is significant harm both psychologically, emotionally and, more limited, physical harm.

[14] In setting a starting point, I have reference to all of the cases that your counsel has referred me to as well as the Crown. This is an evaluative exercise and no two

cases are the same. When I consider all of the aggravating factors that I have just outlined, I consider that a starting point of nine and a half years is appropriate for you.

[15] I turn then to any personal aggravating factors. I had considered uplifting that for your previous convictions. You have 109 of those and, in particular, it was for the offences of violence that I have outlined specifically. However, I am not going to uplift it for that. I think that they were discrete episodes. They were not similar and you have no previous for sexual offending at all. That has been a narrow call however.

[16] I turn then to personal mitigation. In my view, there is none. There has been none put forward. You refused to be interviewed for your pre-sentence report and so there will be no personal mitigation available to you. There is no discount because you took the matter to a Judge alone trial.

[17] The sentence imposed upon you is one of nine and a half years imprisonment.

A J S Snell

District Court Judge