R v Pikari [2022] NZDC 1330 (28 January 2022)

Last Updated: 16 November 2023

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/DEFENDANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360347.html

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360350.html

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NAPIER I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI AHURIRI

CRI-2020-020-001213

[2022] NZDC 1330

THE QUEEN

v

[LOGAN PIKARI]

Hearing:	28 January 2022
Appearances:	A Bryant for the Crown W Hawkins for the Defendant
Judgment:	28 January 2022

NOTES OF JUDGE G A REA ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr [Pikari], you are here for sentence on 11 separate very serious sexual charges involving four different complainants, two female and two male, and all of those had family connections to you. The range of offending was very significant, in

R v [LOGAN PIKARI] [2022] NZDC 1330 [28 January 2022]

that it ran from the beginning of January 1995 through to March of 2020, in excess of 25 years.

[2] At the time the summary was prepared, you were 45 years old. You were unemployed. You had been in a relationship with the mother of one of the complainants and so that meant that you, at the time you offended against that complainant, were in a stepfather/stepdaughter relationship. The second complainant is now [over 30] years of age, lives locally and you were her uncle. The third complainant is a [over 30] year old male who lives locally and you were his uncle. The last complainant is now [over 30] years of age, he is a male and you were his uncle. Three of the complainants were siblings.

[3] The first lot of offending against the first complainant that I wish to deal with is the one where you were in the relationship with her mother and therefore in a position of a stepfather. You attempted to rape that complainant once when she was aged [under 14]. She was asleep in her own bed when you climbed on top of her, you pulled her pants down and you forced her legs apart. She tried to escape, but you held her down. You punched her in the leg and ribs and covered her mouth with your hand. She managed to make enough sound to alert others in the house and as a result of that you stopped your attack on her and you left the room. You then did something that became a feature of your offending, you threatened to beat her up if she told anybody. That came on top of the fact that you had used quite considerable physical violence on her in an endeavour to try and rape her.

[4] You then went on and raped that complainant on an occasion when she was 13 years of age. You were looking after her and her younger siblings while other adults in the household went out. You told her to wait in a room while you put the other children to bed. You then came into her room and you assaulted her. You touched her breasts and genitalia and you tried to kiss her. She kept moving and trying to avoid you and crying. Your response was to punch her in the leg, stomach and head. You held her arms above her head and then you raped her. You ejaculated into a nearby t-shirt. At the time, the complainant had her period and she found the whole episode extremely disturbing. You made her lie next to you until you fell asleep. Again, you threatened to beat her up if she told anybody. She tried to tell her mother the next day,

but she was not believed and, as I understand, that situation has continued on because of your relationship with her mother.

[5] You then raped her again when she was 17 years of age. She was asleep in her bed with her sister. You moved the sister out of the room and woke her up by touching her and forcing her onto her back. You squeezed her breasts, you kissed her and you pinched her vagina, such that it caused her pain. She cried out and asked you stop. You then made it clear that you were not going to. You repeatedly punched her in the face. She struggled to get away, but you physically restrained her and then you raped her and warned her not to tell anyone else.

[6] The second complainant was aged [under 12] years in 1995 and 1996. On one occasion, she slept at her aunt’s house in [location 1] overnight as adults were drinking there for a family celebration. She woke up to find you forcing your penis into her vagina. It was painful and she started crying. You continued to have intercourse with her for a couple of minutes. You got off her and told her not to tell anyone and the next morning she noticed blood in her underwear.

[7] After the first occasion, you sexually abused her on at least five other occasions when she was [under 12] years old. She would often walk to your address in [location 1] to borrow household items for her mother. You made her wait by a daybed, inside the entrance to the address, when you would go away and collect the item that she had come to borrow. When you returned, you would sexually violate her by using your hands to force her head onto your erect penis and inserting your penis into her mouth. She would have to suck your penis for a few minutes. You told her not to tell anybody and you threatened to beat her up if she did so.

[8] The next complainant was a male and the offending against him occurred when he was between seven and eight years of age. One night, he stayed overnight at your property while his mother was out. You called him into your bedroom. You had no pants on. You told the complainant to come towards you. He started crying. You told him to take hold of your penis with his hand and put it in his mouth. He continued crying and you repeated the instruction. You then told the complainant to suck your penis for a few minutes and he complied with that because he had little choice under

the circumstances. You again threatened him, told him to tell nobody otherwise you would give him a hiding.

[9] With that same complainant, his mother would often go out leaving you to look after him and his younger brother. You then instructed both boys to put their penises in each other’s mouth and while that was happening you masturbated as you watched. The boys were very young. They were scared and crying but complied with your instructions out of fear of you. This occurred on at least 10 occasions.

[10] The last complainant featured in the offending that I have just outlined. He was between seven and eight years of age and he also resided in [location 1] with his mother and his siblings. You would look after him and his siblings while his mother went out. As I have said, on at least 10 occasions you called him into the hallway, told the other children to stay in the lounge, and then you made him suck your penis. You forced his head towards your penis and inserted it into his mouth. You warned him not to tell anyone. The complainant told his mother, but she accused him of lying.

[11] As I have indicated already, you set the two boys up to sexually violate each other while you watched. They were crying, but you made them continue.

[12] When you were interviewed by police, you denied any offending. You explained that you had kissed one of the complainants when she was a young girl to see what it felt like and you also stated that you had put your hands down her pants, touching her underwear on two occasions.

[13] Ultimately, you received a sentence indication from me which you accepted. The sentence indication was one of a starting point of 18 years’ imprisonment and you were told that if you pleaded guilty you would get the discount of 20 per cent to reflect that plea. That would have been an end sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. That was accepted. It was always on the basis that further reports would undoubtedly have been filed about you and that is what has happened.

[14] I have received a cultural report. I have received a psychiatric report and I have also received a remorse letter from you. It has to be said, quite frankly, Mr

[Pikari], that the remorse letter is something like 30 years too late. You persistently offended against children in your own whānau. You were quite happy to use violence and the threats of violence to have your way. You would have been reinforced in your conduct because two of the children at least complained about what you had been doing to a responsible adult, they were disbelieved and, as a result, undoubtedly that provided you with further encouragement to continue on with your offending.

[15] The offending has had the expected disastrous effect on the lives of the people that you committed it on. You simply cannot behave in a way such as this towards children and expect that everybody moves on. The effect on people is life-long and that is reflected not only in the common sense of the situation, nor from the experience that any judge has dealing with these cases, but also from the material that I have before me.

[16] Both the cultural report and the psychiatric report really struggle to make a connection between any disadvantage or mental conditions that you may have had that could possibly lead to this sort of offending over a 25 year period. Like many people the Court see in this situation, you yourself had difficulties growing up, you were a victim, but you turned into a predator very quickly over 25 years ago and you kept on being a predator for two and a half decades.

[17] It is difficult to assess whether there is any real connection with your upbringing, your mental health situation and the offending that you have committed. I accept that you were perhaps more vulnerable to this sort of offending than many; however, this sort of offending goes across any cultures. There simply is no excuse for it and you are being sentenced on that basis.

[18] The Crown accepts that there is sufficient material there for a modest percentage decrease in the overall sentence that will be imposed upon you. I agree with that. Based on the reports that I have received, I consider that a 12 per cent deduction should be added to the 20 per cent you have already got for your plea. That takes the overall sentence down to one of 12 years and three months’ imprisonment overall.

[19] On the sexual violation charges, you will be sentenced to 12 years and three months’ imprisonment.

[20] On the attempted sexual violation, you will be sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

[21] On the assaults, you will be sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Those are all concurrent, running together, making a total of 18 months.

[22] There is now an issue around whether there should be a minimum non-parole period. Both counsel have submitted that it is almost routine that a minimum non-parole period would be imposed for a sentence of this length for this sort of offending. Since the Court of Appeal decision in R v Zhang, that approach probably is no longer justified.1 There is no automatic presumption of imposing a minimum non-parole period, the circumstances must be considered.

[23] Obviously, it is necessary to go to the statutory requirements. The Court is entitled to impose a minimum non-parole period if it is satisfied that the sentence without one would be insufficient for any of the following purposes:

• (a) the first is holding you accountable for the harm that you have done to the victim and/or victims and the community by the offending;
  
• (b) secondly, denouncing the conduct that you were involved in;
  
• (c) thirdly, deterring you or anyone else from committing the same or similar offending; and
  
• (d) importantly here, the fourth of protecting the community, particularly young children, from you on an ongoing basis.
  

[24] The probation officer’s report, understandably, says that you are at high risk of offending. This particular offending has a further aggravating feature to it which I

1 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507.

have already mentioned on more than one occasion and that is your ability to inflict violence and threaten violence to children when you offend against them, to introduce another dynamic to the trauma that they would already suffer as a result of the offending. I consider that there must be a real risk that you would continue on with this offending if you were given the opportunity to do so.

[25] I have read what you have said in your letter of remorse, that you have had time to reflect on the damage that you have done; however, that is not in accord entirely with what the probation officer has said.

[26] On that basis, I consider that a minimum non-parole period is required and in relation to the charges of sexual violation there will be a minimum non-parole period of six years.

[27] One final matter. There was some discussion during the course of submissions, also involving the members of the press who were present, as to whether there was a need to suppress your name to protect the identity of the complainants. They are protected as a matter of statute. In the end, it was originally considered that the statutory protections of the complainants would be sufficient; however, in my view, that would not necessarily have meant that the reality of this offending could be properly reported. This is a situation where there was considerable offending within a whānau situation and the public are entitled to know that that is the basis of the sentencing, because it is one of the most important features of it: the breach of trust that you repeatedly became involved in.

[28] To enable the press to properly do their job and to protect the complainants, I consider the only sensible course is to suppress your name in relation to these charges. That has nothing to do with the protection of your reputation, but everything to do with proper reporting and the complete protection of the names of the complainants or any ability that anyone else would have to identify them.

G A Rea

District Court Judge