Judge Cathcart, who presided over the jury trial, described Rawiri’s crime as “horrible”. Rawiri continued to deny it but the girl’s account was consistent with him having sexual intercourse with her and a jury believed it.
The girl was known to Rawiri. In June 2015 she and another child went to his property and asked if he wanted a water fight. Rawiri sent the other child away and told the girl to go into his house, where he had the girl lie on a bed and had intercourse with her.
The girl told Rawiri to stop but he said to wait until he had finished. If she stopped crying it would stop hurting, he said.
Before letting her leave, he told her not to tell anyone.
She did not tell her caregiver or anyone else immediately but told her mother about 10 days later.
Effects on girlThe girl’s age and her trust in Rawiri made her particularly vulnerable, the judge said. The effects on her were long-term and incalculable.
In a statement read to the court, the girl’s caregiver had said the bubbly, independent child was now anxious and scared, frightened of bumping into Rawiri and fearful of any male who looked like him.
Her caregiver was uncomfortable letting anyone else look after the girl and watched the clock when she was walking home from school.
Going to functions was no longer enjoyable. She was always scanning the room to see who was hugging or looking at the girl.
That was no way to live. It was an unfair sentence on them. They were prisoners in their own home.
Rawiri would get a sentence that ultimately ended but theirs was for life.
For Rawiri, counsel Vicky Thorpe said comprehensive reports showed his background had left him in a position where the prognosis for him was bleak. Events had occurred when he was vulnerable.
Abuse he suffered and normalisation of behaviour the rest of society found inappropriate had impacted on him. He had cognitive difficulties and a physical injury.
Rawiri’s disadvantages were significant and not of his making, Ms Thorpe said.
His circumstances were telling of his likely understanding of what was and was not acceptable to society.
Ms Thorpe pointed to Rawiri’s previous good character. His criminal record was limited to irrelevant matters.
Vulnerable in prisonHe would be particularly vulnerable in prison.
Rawiri maintained his denial of the offending but she noted he was in a Catch-22 situation. If he openly acknowledged the offending, he could face greater personal risk in prison yet by maintaining his current position he would also be disadvantaged by probably being unable to access programmes and activities, Ms Thorpe said.
Judge Cathcart set a starting point of nine years.
He refused to give discount for Rawiri’s previous good character, saying the gravity of the offending outweighed it.
There could be no discount for remorse while Rawiri’s denial stood. But the judge accepted Ms Thorpe’s submissions as to a possible basis for that.
He would not take into account Rawiri’s likely vulnerability in prison — that would be a matter for prison authorities, the judge said.
There was clear evidence of a causative link between Rawiri’s limited intellectual function and the offending, for which he would get a 22-month discount.
The judge accepted information confirmed Rawiri’s claim his upbringing was like a “horror movie”.
But there was no evidence to show offending against him had materially attributed to his own. Without that, the court could only give discount for it as an independent mitigating principal. He was prepared to do so in a limited way with a further reduction of 10 months, the judge said.
Rawiri’s outstanding fines debt of about $2500 was cancelled.
