Gisborne Courthouse. File picture by Rebecca Grunwell
PRISON was the only option for a man who sexually violated his wife, despite her unusual plea for a merciful approach, a judge ruled in Gisborne District Court.
The man, whose name was permanently suppressed, was jailed by Judge Warren Cathcart for 21 months with six months post-release conditions.
The sentencing hearing included formal addresses by the victim and a church leader, who both urged the judge to step back from imprisonment and instead impose home detention, which was also the recommendation of a pre-sentence report.
Judge Cathcart said the woman’s statement was one of the most eloquent he had heard from someone subjected to such an appalling crime. She had not tried to minimise her husband’s offending but urged the court to consider that imprisoning him, would only exacerbate the harm already caused to her and their children.
Her husband had previously been a good father and provider, she said.
The family was “totally broken” and now struggling financially and emotionally in the wake of what he did.
Her husband had made bad choices that had now resulted in him losing his wife, children, home and livelihood, the woman said. No term of imprisonment would fix that.
She believed he was not without hope of rehabilitation. The church leader’s statement echoed the woman’s. The children needed both of their parents, he said. The sentence should be one of minimal impact on the family.
He spoke of the man’s otherwise good character and gave a personal commitment to ensure his compliance with a sentence of home detention.
Judge Cathcart said judges had every sympathy for children of parents who committed criminal acts but he was bound by the law.
Woman's plea for mercyCounsel Tiana Epati submitted the woman’s plea for mercy could be included in circumstances of the offender or the offending to displace the presumption for imprisonment.
Crown prosecutor Steve Manning argued that was not possible. Judge Cathcart agreed. The circumstances of other cases where imprisonment had been avoided were too different to this one, the judge ruled.
The sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence and accountability had to be paramount. The victim’s views did not tip the balance in the man’s favour.
Summarising the case, Judge Cathcart said the couple had several children together but around the time of the offence were in the process of separating.
They had arrived home from a social gathering in the early hours.
The woman wanted to join her children and sleep on the lounge floor.
But her husband insisted she go with him to the bedroom.
When she refused, he lay down beside her and pinched her thighs so hard they bled — an aggravating feature of the offence, Judge Cathcart said.
The man forcibly dragged his wife to the bedroom, tied one of her arms to a bed sheet and sexually violated her, including biting the skin around her vagina which caused her even more considerable pain — another seriously aggravating feature.
When the woman cried out, one of the children entered the room and said, “Dad, what are you doing, you’re hurting Mum”.
Aggravating factorsOther aggravating factors the court had to account for — the violence, a breach of trust given he was her husband, significant emotional harm to the victim and their children.
The man’s offending was appalling and had stripped the woman of her dignity, mana and self-respect, Judge Cathcart said.
He set a starting point of four years and applied discounts of 15 percent for the man’s willingness to attend a restorative justice process, six months reduction for his previous good character, and another six months reduction in recognition of his family circumstances, particularly the impact on the children.
Discount for remorse was discussed at more length. Prosecutor Steve Manning said the Crown was concerned that when interviewed for a pre-sentence report, the man denied he had bitten the woman.
That denial on such a serious aggravating feature, was material to his level of remorse and the amount of discount he could get for it, he said.
Ms Epati said the man could not recall that denial and was shocked to see it mentioned in the pre-sentence report.
The judge asked the probation officer if there was any question he might have that wrong. The probation officer said no.
The judge limited discount for remorse to seven and a half months.
There was a full 25 percent discount for the man’s guilty pleas.
The report assessed his likelihood of reoffending and risk of harm to others as low.