R v Cooper HC Napier CRI-2009-041-3842 [2011] NZHC 549 (9 May 2011)

Last Updated: 20 June 2011

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

_1985.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

_{CRI-2009-041-3842}

THE QUEEN

v

_{JOURDAN COOPER}

Hearing: 9 May 2011

Appearances: S Manning for Crown

A J Snell and Mr Phelps for Cooper

Judgment: 9 May 2011

_{SENTENCING REMARKS OF ALLAN J}

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor Napier, [e-mail]

_{A J Snell, Hastings, [e-mail]}

R V JOURDAN COOPER HC NAP CRI-2009-041-3842 9 May 2011

[1] Mr Cooper, during the early hours of 23 October 2009, you went on an offending rampage at two separate Napier addresses. You were consequently charged with a number of offences, upon which you were tried by a Judge and jury in the Napier District Court on 14 and 15 December 2010. On the morning of the trial you pleaded guilty to two charges of male assaults female, for which the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment, one charge of possession of an offensive weapon, for which the maximum penalty is also two years imprisonment, and one charge of threatening to kill, for which the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.

[2] The jury found you guilty of the remaining charges; namely burglary, for which the maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment, injuring with intent to injure, five years imprisonment, threatening to kill, seven years imprisonment and finally rape, 20 years imprisonment.

[3] When you appeared for sentence, the Judge declined jurisdiction and remanded you for sentence in this Court on the application of the Crown, in order that a sentence of preventive detention might be considered.

Factual background

[4] It is necessary to review the facts in some detail. On 22 October 2009, you went to a social event at a hotel with your partner S, and her daughter, A. You had been in a sporadic relationship with S for about three years. S and A departed separately, leaving you behind. S went to her sister Mm’s house; A went to the flat which she shared with M and another female flatmate. You became enraged at having been left without transport and walked about three km to Mm’s address. When you arrived S let you inside. At that point you began to assault her by punching her several times with a closed fist. S suffered minor bruising as a result. Hearing a noise Mm woke up and sought to protect S. At that stage you said “You want to be stabbed – I’ll show youse”. You went into the kitchen, obtained a small knife and held it close to S’s throat. In order to distract you Mm threw several

objects at you. At that point you left S and advanced towards Mm. In retreating, she tripped, so enabling you to jump on top of her and punch her twice to the face. She also suffered minor bruising.

[5] These incidents were the subject of the two charges of male assaults female and the charge of possession of an offensive weapon.

[6] Mm managed to escape, running outside to get help from neighbours who had gathered by reason of the noise emanating from the house. You also left the house, getting into a van and driving to the house where A and M were staying the night. It appears that at this point you still had the knife which you had obtained from the kitchen.

[7] When you reached the second address, you unlatched a partly open side window and climbed into the house. By then, it was about 5 am. You went into a bedroom where M was asleep (as were her flatmates in other bedrooms) and closed the door. You removed your clothes and approached M, who woke up and started screaming. You told her to shut up, and presumably in order to secure her silence, you punched her repeatedly about the head and upper body with your fists. When she continued to scream you told her you would slit her throat, and inflicted further blows.

[8] As a result of this assault she suffered severe bruising and scratches to her face, neck, shoulders and back. The photographs produced at trial establish that this was a beating of considerable severity. The charge of injuring with intent to injure and the first charge of threatening to kill, arise out of this aspect of her ordeal.

[9] Following the assault, you told M you were going to fuck her and demanded that she remove her clothing. Fearing further violence, she complied. But to her credit she engaged you in conversation for a considerable period, her object being to try to talk you out of further offending and to persuade you to leave. Instead, you eventually began licking her shoulder and stroking her legs. Without success, she attempted to wake up her flatmates by calling out. At that point you told her that you had arrived with a butcher’s knife and that your intention was to kill A in order to get

back at S. You said “Do you want your mates to come in and I’ll slit their throats?”

That evidence supports the second conviction for threatening to kill.

[10] I pause to say that from what you seem to have told the probation officer, your principal initial intention in going to this second address was to kill, or at least wound, A, for the extraordinary purpose of endeavouring to punish S, because she had left you behind when leaving the earlier function.

[11] M endeavoured to avoid your advances by curling up into a foetal position and keeping her legs together, but you became extremely angry, told her again you were going to fuck her, threatened to slit her throat, and ultimately achieved your objective by force. Once the rape commenced, M ceased to struggle in order to avoid further violence. But after several minutes she was able to push you off. At that stage you said to her that she had just saved A’s life. The inference is, that by reason of your sexual encounter with M, you had decided not to kill A after all. You got dressed and left the house. It was then just after 7 am.

[12] The next day you were located and taken into custody. You told the police that you had drunk too much at the time of the offending, and that you had taken an unspecified pill, which made you behave abnormally.

Victim impact statement

[13] M, who was 19 years old at the time, says she was absolutely terrified during her ordeal, and thought either she or A, or perhaps both, were going to die. As a result of the attack, she received bruises to her arms, face and head, which lasted for some considerable time. She suffered serious pain in her shoulders and to her ribs. She could not go back to the flat; neither could her flatmates. She has since had great difficulty in sleeping, particularly when her boyfriend is absent, because she fears another attack. She cannot contemplate living anywhere that is not absolutely secure. As is regrettably common, M has lost interest in making herself look attractive, she has abandoned a course of training in the beauty industry.

[14] The trial itself was an enormous ordeal for her, to the point at which she endeavoured to commit suicide on several occasions in order to avoid having to give evidence. She says she tried to hang herself, she cut her wrists, and she swallowed household cleaners. In the week before the trial she drank to excess and needed to be hospitalised for that.

[15] It is appropriate to mention that until a DNA match provided very strong support for the Crown’s case that you were the offender, you were inclined to deny that you were at the house that morning, despite M’s evidence that, as day broke, she was able to recognise you. You had been in the house on previous occasions to visit your stepdaughter.

[16] When it became clear that you could not realistically argue you were not the offender, you claimed that the sexual encounter was consensual. In other words, you alleged that M consented to sexual intercourse, and moreover, that she had initiated sex by undressing in front of you.

[17] Given the injuries she sustained, it is readily understandable that the jury found you guilty after only a short retirement. The importance of the point for present purposes is that your consent defence added to the pressure on M at the time of the trial, and heightened her ordeal.

Pre-sentence report

[18] You are Maori, 38 years old, and the father of four children. They were all born of a long term relationship with your second partner. Although you left school at the age of 16 years without significant qualifications, it appears that at times you have been able to remain in employment, and have some considerable experience in the packing industry. That is the positive side of the picture.

[19] On the negative side is your alcohol and drug consumption. You accept that prior to this offending, you were consuming large amounts of alcohol several times a week, and you were a regular user of both cannabis and methamphetamine. You do not accept that the jury was right to find you guilty of the offences to which you

pleaded not guilty. In particular, you continue to maintain that your sexual encounter with M was consensual. Accordingly, there is no acceptance of responsibility and no remorse. There also seems to be a tendency to blame your use of violence on your alcohol and drug consumption, as if that was somehow not your responsibility.

[20] Mr Cooper, it needs to be said that, on the evidence, there could not have been the slightest doubt that you raped M, and that you seriously assaulted her. Your claim that she not only agreed to sex but initiated it, was frankly ridiculous. M bears no responsibility whatever for what happened. On the contrary, you present the Court will a difficult sentencing problem by reason of your refusal to face up to the reality of what you did.

[21] Since 1990, when you were 17 years of age, you have accumulated some 20 convictions. They include two for violent offending, eight for dishonesty (including two for burglary), six drug related convictions, three for wilful damage, and finally there is an earlier conviction for rape. That was in 1993 when you were 20 years old. That offence is of some significance in the context of today’s hearing.

[22] You decided to burgle a house across the road from the place where you were residing. Having effected an entry at about 1 am, you encountered the sole occupant, a 63 year old female, who was asleep in her bed. She woke when you placed a hand over her mouth, telling her she would be killed if she made a noise. You were standing by her bed already naked. You got into bed, removed the victim’s underwear and then had sexual intercourse with her. She was too scared to resist. You then asked her for money. There being little in the house, you returned to the front door where you had left your clothing, got dressed and departed. You were apprehended by the police the following day. On that occasion you pleaded guilty a day or two prior to your trial.

[23] As here, you had been drinking during the day prior to that offence and using cannabis. Neazor J took a starting point of eight and a half years imprisonment, reduced both for your guilty plea and for time already served, to an ultimate sentence of six years ten months imprisonment. Sentences in those days were significantly

lower than they are now. Indeed, you were fortunate in a sense because sentences for rape increased sharply not long after you were dealt with on that occasion.

[24] It is a matter of concern that although you were prepared to face up to what you had done when you were a young man, you are not prepared to do that now. You continue to deny responsibility for what happened to M.

[25] Following your release from prison for that offending, you were sent to prison for a further year for receiving in 2001. Thereafter, there were convictions in

2006 and 2007 for cultivating cannabis, wilful damage and assault. In each instance a sentence of community work was imposed.

Sentencing approach

[26] The Crown submits that it would be proper to impose upon you a sentence of preventive detention, which is an indeterminate sentence under which you would not be released unless and until the offending risk you pose had been sufficiently reduced. In the alternative, the Crown submits a very lengthy finite sentence ought to be imposed.

[27] On your behalf Mr Snell and Mr Phelps submit that preventive detention is not warranted, and the case can properly be accommodated by a finite sentence of appropriate length.

[28] I propose to determine first what an appropriate finite sentence would be, and then to consider whether it is necessary to impose a sentence of preventive detention instead. In doing so I will take into account as appropriate all the purposes and principles of sentencing, set out in ss 7, 8 and 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Finite sentence

[29] The most serious offence here, and therefore the lead offence, is that relating to the rape of M. Sentencing for rape is now governed by the guideline judgment of

the Court of Appeal in R v AM.1 In AM the Court of Appeal mandates sentencing in accordance with four sentencing bands. Band 1 is concerned with the least serious cases, band 4 with the most serious. The bands overlap, so that a case at the top of band 2 will attract much the same starting point as a case at the lower end of band 3.

[30] Cases will generally be assessed by reference to the number of aggravating factors entailed in the offending. Here, there are three principal aggravating factors. The first is that you gained entry to M’s home by breaking in, so it is a home invasion case. The Court will always regard that as a serious aggravating factor. Everyone, and particularly every woman, is entitled to be secure in their home, especially in the middle of the night.

[31] The second factor is victim vulnerability. You were twice M’s age and you had both a physical advantage and the advantage of surprise. She was asleep when you entered her room. When you woke her you were already naked and had the advantage of her. She had no means of escape.

[32] The third factor is the degree of violence you employed and the consequent harm suffered by M. There was very considerable actual physical violence, you threatened to kill her and to cause her further harm. You had a knife with you. These factors coupled with your physical advantage enabled you simply to overpower her. It is no wonder that M is still struggling to cope more than 18 months after the offending.

[33] In AM, the Court described band 2 cases of rape as involving a vulnerable victim, or an offender who commits additional violence beyond the act of rape itself. It is appropriate for cases involving two or three aggravating factors. Rape band 3 offences will typically involve a particularly vulnerable victim, and serious additional violence. It is apt also to cover particularly cruel, callous, or violent

_{single episodes.}

1 R v AM [2010] NZCA 114; (2010) 24 CRNZ 540.

[34] Mr Manning submits that this case falls towards the top of band 2, or the lower end of band 3. This morning, Mr Snell and Mr Phelps have submitted it falls somewhere about the middle of band 2.

[35] I tend to agree with Mr Manning. I think that this case falls at the cusp between bands 2 and 3, and that it calls for a starting point of 12 years imprisonment. In reaching that conclusion I have considered several cases which are broadly comparable to this case. I mention two which bear similar features. The first is R v Waretini.2 There, the prisoner was sentenced for rape, aggravated burglary and indecent assault. He entered the house of his 67 year old victim, took a long carving knife from the kitchen and a towel from the bathroom, and then confronted her. He

placed the towel over her face and threatened her with the knife, forcing her onto the bed where he licked her breasts and then raped her.

[36] A separate indecent assault charge arose out of an incident in which the prisoner entered his ex-girlfriend’s house without consent and repeatedly tried to kiss her. The Judge took a starting point of 12 years imprisonment.

[37] The second case is R v Ngawhika.3 There, the prisoner was sentenced on three counts of sexual violation, and on counts of aggravated burglary, aggravated wounding and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He waited until the 24 year old victim was alone at home; broke into the house, took a knife from the kitchen and went to the bedroom. The victim had been asleep. The prisoner woke her, pinned her down, and punched her four or five times in the head. He put the blade of the knife to her throat and a pillowcase over her head. She was then sexually abused; he fondled her breasts, penetrated her digitally, performed oral sex and raped her in several positions for about an hour.

[38] The Judge considered the offending fell at the lower end of band 3 and adopted a starting point of 13 years imprisonment.

2 _{R v Waretini HC Hamilton CRI 2009-019-8137, 9 July 2010.}

3 R v Ngawhika HC Auckland CRI-2010-092-6946, 12 November 2010.

[39] I consider this present case to be on a par with Waretini, in that there, the knife seems to have been used as a direct threat, but on the other hand there seems to have been little violence apart from that inherent in the act of rape itself. Otherwise the case is broadly similar to Waretini. The present case is less serious than Ngawhika. In that case the sexual activity was greater and lasted longer. There was a threat to use a knife and a significant degree of violence. Like this, each case involved a home invasion.

[40] From a starting point of 12 years imprisonment, it is necessary to consider two further aggravating factors. The first is the offending against S, Mm and A. That must be separately recognised, not only to ensure that your overall culpability is properly acknowledged, but also to some degree to vindicate these other victims who were put through a significant ordeal. It is especially necessary to take account of your serious assaults on S and Mm.

[41] There will be a one year uplift to take into account the balance of your offending on the morning of 23 October.

[42] But there must be a further uplift also for your previous record and in particular, to recognise the importance of the fact that you have an earlier conviction for a rape committed in remarkably similar circumstances to those which arise here. You have not learnt anything much from the long prison sentence you served for that earlier sexual offence. It is incumbent upon me to ensure that your previous record is properly taken into account on this occasion. There will be a further uplift of one year for that.

[43] That brings me to an overall sentence of 14 years imprisonment. There are no mitigating factors of the offending, and nothing to which you can point at a personal level, save for your guilty plea at the last minute to some of the lesser charges. That was too little too late to attract a discount.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[44] The Crown seeks the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment. Under s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002 the Court may impose a minimum period of imprisonment if it considers the period that would otherwise apply under the Parole Act 2002 is insufficient to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community, to denounce the offending conduct, to deter the offender or others from committing the same or a similar offence, and to protect the community from the offender.

[45] All four factors are present in this case, and in particular the need to protect the community from you. I am satisfied that the minimum period of imprisonment that would otherwise apply under the Parole Act is insufficient for those purposes, and that a minimum period should be imposed. The Court is empowered to impose a minimum period to a maximum of two-thirds of the finite sentence. In this case, I consider a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years to be appropriate.

Preventive detention

[46] I turn now to the Crown’s submission that in all the circumstances a term of preventive detention should be imposed instead of a finite sentence. The purpose of a sentence of preventive detention is to protect the community from those who pose a significant and on-going risk to the safety of its members. Its primary function is not punitive.4 Three legislative preconditions must be satisfied before such a sentence can be imposed. I will turn to those in a moment, but I pause to observe that even if these preconditions are established, it does not automatically follow that

a sentence of preventive detention must, or even ought, to be imposed. The final outcome remains a matter of discretion. Neither is a sentence of preventive detention to be regarded as a sentence of last resort. The relevant factors must be

_{carefully considered and weighed.}

4 Sentencing Act 2002, s 87(1). R v C [2003] 1 NZLR 30 at [33]-[34].

[47] In order to qualify for a sentence of preventive detention, you must be over

18 years of age and have committed a qualifying sexual or violent offence. Each of those conditions is satisfied here.

[48] The third requirement is that the Court must be satisfied that you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence, if released at the expiry date of a finite sentence. This last requirement is, of course, the nub of the matter. The Court is required, in making the necessary assessment, to have regard to the mandatory factors set out in s 87(4).

Pattern of serious offending

[49] The first factor to be considered is whether a pattern of serious offending is disclosed by your history. I have discussed your record earlier. There are various dishonesty offences, several lower level assault convictions and some cannabis related drug offences. Little of that is in my view relevant to the present assessment. However, your earlier conviction for rape is of central importance. There are several common features between that earlier case and this one. The key issue is the use of both alcohol and drugs prior to each offence, and as I have discussed, there are certain common details such as the removal of your clothes before waking each complainant, your telling each of them what you are going to do, and an apparent threat to kill in order to secure compliance, although it appears that at sentencing on the first occasion you denied having made any such threat and the Judge chose to discharge you on that trailer charge.

[50] But I do not think that these two separate offences can really be said to comprise a pattern of serious offending. Although they bear some similarity to each other they are separated by a period of 16 years, of which at least ten were spent in the community. You did not offend sexually during that time.

[51] It appears to me that you are prone to aggressive behaviour when drunk or affected by drugs, and that on these two occasions that aggression took the form of sexual violence.

[52] The first offence appears to have started as a burglary which became rape when you discovered the occupant of the house alone and asleep. The present offending is difficult to assess in that your principal reason for going to the house seems to have been to kill A, but you somehow became diverted when you gained access to M’s bedroom. Although in each case it might be said that the rapes were opportunistic in that you took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself, I do not think much emphasis can be placed upon the existence of a pattern of serious offending.

Seriousness of harm to the community

[53] It is self-evident that this offending (and here I am talking about the rape in particular), had serious consequences for M, for those who are close to her, and for the wider community. This Court is bound to protect, insofar as it can, the entitlement of women and girls in our society to live without fear of serious sexual assault, particularly when in their own homes at night. I have already outlined the on-going problems with which M must contend. That is all down to you Mr Cooper, and it is completely inconsistent with your claims that M somehow not only consented to have sexual intercourse with you, but that she initiated it. So I take into account the nature of this offending and the need to protect the community from behaviour of this sort.

Information indicating a tendency to commit serious offences in the future

[54] As required by the Sentencing Act, two health assessors have provided reports. One is from Dr Greg Young, a consultant psychiatrist, and the other is from Dr Mm Berry, a clinical psychologist. They have an important but difficult role to play. Their task is to assist the Court in considering the third factor, namely, the degree to which you are at risk of committing serious offences in the future.

[55] The Court is required to assess that risk as at the date of your release following the completion of a finite sentence. That will be many years into the future. Unsurprisingly, most assessors are reluctant to commit themselves to any particular view. Rather, they endeavour to identify aspects of your behaviour and

personality that are thought to be relevant to what might occur. It is often said, with some justification, that the best predictor of future behaviour is past conduct.

[56] You have now committed a very serious sexual offence on two occasions. I

accept there must be at least some risk that you will do so again.

[57] Dr Young has drawn the Court’s attention to certain concerning, and even bizarre, aspects of your behaviour. First, and importantly, you do not accept the jury’s rape verdict. You still maintain that M invited you to have sex with her. Accordingly, there is no remorse. Dr Young points out that you are unlikely to become a candidate for sex offender rehabilitation unless and until you do accept what you have done. The evidence against you was overwhelming. With time to reflect it may be that you will come to understand that you bear the whole of the responsibility for what you did to M and the others. But until you do, you present rehabilitation problems.

[58] Then, there is the drug and alcohol question. For part of your adult life, you have drunk alcohol to excess. You have also habitually used drugs of all sorts, although not, I understand, intravenously, and you say you would be likely to continue using cannabis in the future. These substances, taken in excess, tend to make you angry, and when you are angry you become violent. You need anger management assistance, but again, that is not really viable until you come to terms with the causes of your offending.

[59] You say that you were sober between the ages of about 20 and 35. I understand that to mean that you were drinking only in moderation. There was no sexual offending during that period and only one assault conviction. There are, it must be said, indicators that your alcohol intake was fairly substantial for much of your adult life, but I accept that your criminal record does not approach in gravity that of many candidates for preventive detention.

[60] Another positive factor, is your relationship with your four children who are aged between 11 and four years. They figure prominently in your life. Dr Young considers that, despite your refusal to acknowledge the correctness of the jury’s

verdict, and a consequent lack of empathy for M in particular, you have shown an ability to empathise with others in a different setting. So there are certain positive features.

[61] Dr Berry saw you on three occasions for a total of more than four hours. At times during those interviews you became emotional, especially when dealing with the death of your closest brother when you were 15 years old, and the more recent death of your mother. I note you are having some problems containing your emotions this morning, which I see as a positive sign.

[62] Dr Berry is concerned about the place of alcohol and drug use in your life, and its connection with your offending. She is particularly concerned about your tendency to blame alcohol and drugs for what occurred, rather than accepting personal responsibility. It is troubling to read that you intend to continue using cannabis because it provides a release.

[63] Several years ago your long relationship with the mother of your four children came to an end by reason of your increased drinking, and your associated violent behaviour when drunk. It appears that when you are intoxicated you become not only aggressive but tend also to act in a bizarre and illogical fashion. It is not possible to understand how you could conclude that because S left you at a hotel, depriving you of transport, you should decide to kill her daughter A as a way of getting back at her. Such extreme violence, targeting a wholly innocent person, represents a completely disproportionate response to what occurred, and is frankly troubling.

[64] Dr Berry notes that you received psychological help both in 1994 and in

1998. There was some improvement at the time but once you were released from custody your co-operation became sporadic and you cannot now remember what you learned during those sessions.

[65] Like Dr Young, Dr Berry considers your denial of responsibility for the rape of M represents the biggest barrier to effective treatment. You are going to have to reflect on that, because your release date will be affected by the completion of

targeted rehabilitation programmes, which will not become available to you unless you acknowledge what you have done. When talking about your release date I am not referring to the possibility of a finite sentence or preventive detention at this point. Dr Berry considers you pose a medium to high risk of further sexual and/or violent offending.

Absence of effects by the offender to address the cause of offending.

[66] I am required also to consider what has been done to date to address the causes of your offending. Here, the picture is somewhat mixed. You accepted psychological help following your earlier rape conviction, and there seems to have been some improvement, but you did not complete your counselling sessions and their beneficial effects must have dissipated to some degree.

[67] You pleaded guilty in 1993. That indicated an acceptance of responsibility on that occasion, but now you continue to deny that you raped M. Until there is a degree of acknowledgment on your part, little can be done to help you. But the assistance you have had to date has been limited, and it cannot be said that you would not benefit substantially from various targeted rehabilitation programmes in respect of your sexual offending, anger management, and problems associated with both alcohol and drugs.

[68] Such specialist treatment programmes are generally deferred until a parole date approaches, so you have a significant period of time within which to reflect upon what occurred, and the reasons for it. I consider there is still room for you to turn your life around with assistance from specialists in the areas where you need help. Of particular importance is the absence to date of the opportunity for you to become involved in a sex offender’s rehabilitation programme of the sort widely available in prison.

Whether a finite sentence will be sufficient to protect the community

[69] Finally, I need in a sense to bring all these factors together, and to consider under this final head whether a finite sentence will be sufficient to protect the

community. The principle articulated in the Act, as Mr Phelps has said, is that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable, if it provides adequate protection to society.

[70] I have already indicated to you that a finite sentence would be a term of 14 years imprisonment with a minimum period of eight years. That is a long time. Once the minimum period has expired, your release date would be in the hands of the Parole Board.

[71] I have already identified several negative features both of your background and this offending, but they are balanced to some degree by the consideration that more than 16 years elapsed between the two offences of rape, and by the moderate scale of your other offending. A lengthy determinate sentence will, of necessity, keep you away from alcohol for a very long time. That, of itself, will create an opportunity, when you are released, to maintain an alcohol free lifestyle, particularly if you have, in the latter stages, the assistance of appropriate targeted programmes.

[72] By a relatively fine margin I have concluded that this is not a case in which preventive detention ought to be imposed. However, Mr Cooper, I need to say this to you. Having served your sentence, you will be released back into the community. There, you may once more encounter circumstances of the sort which have led to this present offending. This was an appalling offence, and here I am speaking specifically about your rape of M. If there was a repetition of behaviour like that, or of offending remotely approaching the seriousness of this case, then you must understand that a sentence of preventive detention will be virtually inevitable. I should let you know that the sentencing notes from today will be available to any sentencing Judge in the future, should you reappear.

Sentence

[73] On the count of rape you are sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. On the count of burglary you are sentenced to five years imprisonment. On each of the two counts of threatening to kill you are sentenced to two years imprisonment. On the count of injuring with intent to injure you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.

On each of the two charges of male assaults female, you are sentenced to six months imprisonment. On the charge of possession of an offensive weapon you are sentenced to six months imprisonment.

[74] All of these sentences are to be served concurrently, so the effective sentence is 14 years imprisonment.

[75] On the rape count you are sentenced to serve a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years.

C J Allan J