Joshua Oliver was sentenced to six years' and three months' imprisonment for the sexual violation of a woman. His victim has been battling to get the emotional harm reparation payment he offered at sentencing.
Warning: This story includes details of sexual offending and may be distressing.
When a woman who was sexually violated after a work party was proactively offered a reparation payment by her attacker at sentencing, she thought it would be paid “then and there”.
She also thought it would be the end of the matter, and she could start to move on with her life.
The victim told NZME that while $2500 felt like a “pathetic amount” compared to what she’d been through, and the financial loss she’d suffered, it would be some help towards Christmas, which was then coming up.
But the money didn’t turn up in her account, and calls to the police and courts left her doubting if she’d ever see the money.
It was only after NZME became involved that the money has now been paid, nine months after Joshua Oliver was sentenced to imprisonment, having received a 5% discount for remorse - a discount that took into account his offer of emotional harm reparation.
While the Government’s Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money said she couldn’t comment about specific cases, she acknowledged there were ongoing concerns about unpaid reparation.
In particular, she worried sentencing took into account reparation or other offers, and yet they often did not materialise.
“The judge can only take [offers] at face value, so the judiciary takes into account all offers and all signs of remorse as part of a normal sentencing process.”
A jury found Oliver guilty in June last year on a charge of sexual violation, for an attack while the victim was asleep and intoxicated after a work party.
After an evening of socialising, the victim had gone to bed in a spare bedroom in a friend’s house, only to wake to Oliver “forcefully” violating her.
Her victim impact statement said it had been one of “the most extreme violations a person can endure”.
It left her traumatised, unable to work, and she told the court her children had lost the “carefree, happy mother they once knew”.
When Oliver was sentenced in October, he provided a remorse letter and made the offer of emotional harm reparation.
Judge Lawson said $2500 couldn’t “possibly repay the financial loss that the victim suffered, but it is an offer which I can take into account as a ‘manifestation’ of the remorse you’ve talked about”.
The judge was persuaded that comments Oliver made to a pre-sentence report writer, and the contents of the letter provided to the court, suggested he appreciated the impact of his actions.
“Very often in cases like this, we find victims left in a state of doubt because the defendants maintain their innocence and do not accept the verdicts. Here you have accepted what you have done and that your offending has caused harm to the victim.”
“More than that”, Oliver had made the offer of $2500 emotional harm reparation.
Taking all that into account, Judge Lawson gave Oliver a 5% discount for remorse, as well as 10% for Oliver’s background, to arrive at an end sentence of six years’ and three months’ imprisonment. He ordered the emotional harm reparation, though didn’t give any specific directions about timeframe in his oral judgment.
The victim said there had been a lot of “back and forth” trying to get the reparation, and she had followed up with the collections team at the court.
She was told there had been an unsuccessful attempt to collect the money while Oliver was in custody, and she wouldn’t get the reparation for “at least another six years, or when he gets out of prison, if [she gets it] at all”.
The victim told NZME that from the start, it had felt like a “pathetic amount”. She’d been unable to work after the attack, and it had derailed the career she’d been pursuing.
Despite that, she and her husband had seen the sentencing as the end of the process, and expected the offered reparation would be paid straight away so they could move on.
“We were like, oh good, Christmas is not far away, we can actually ‘do Christmas’, kind of thing... but then it never came.”
She thought that because the money had been proactively offered, and had informed the discount, it would be paid “then and there”.
“If you’re not gonna pay it, don’t get 5% off... stay in prison for a few more months,” she said.
The victim’s husband said they thought, “this is sentencing, he goes to prison. The payment is made. We move on with our lives and don’t have to think about it again”.
Before the payment was made, the victim said chasing up the payment had made it hard to move on and put the attack, and the trial, behind her.
It had felt “never-ending”, she said.
It was only after NZME contacted a representative for Oliver that the payment was made.
However, despite several requests for comment, NZME has not received any official response about why it hadn’t been paid earlier.
Figures released to NZME in March, revealed unpaid reparation in the Tauranga District Court sits at $5,717,308, while the total outstanding reparation across the country is $105,678,413.
Ministry of Justice National Service Delivery group manager Tracey Baguley couldn’t comment on specific cases, but said when reparation was ordered in cases where a defendant was sentenced to imprisonment, the ministry would still attempt to collect the payment. That was payable within 28 days unless specific alternative timeframes were directed by the judge.
“When an offender is in prison... however, enforcement options are often limited,” Baguley said.
Enforcement could include wages or bank account deduction, seizing property and, in some cases, suspending the offender’s driver’s licence.
“...the legislation does not empower the court to pay the victim before it is collected from the offender; instead, the offender pays reparation, with payments enforced by the court.”
This is an area that Money, the Government’s Chief Victims Advisor, has much to say about.
When reparation went unpaid, it could cause issues with trust and confidence in the court system.
It could also have a “long-lasting impact” on victims.
“Either receiving little drip-fed amounts over a long period of time, as a constant reminder of their trauma,” she said.
“Or waiting many years, and still perhaps nothing materialising at the end of it.”
She had seen “many” cases where reparation had been paid swiftly, however, and where the offender had paid reparation while in prison.
“Often the survivor is using that for therapy, for loss of income over missing work... it allows them to truly draw a line in the sand.”
She wanted to explore whether the state could pay the reparation, and then chase up the offender, rather than leaving it to victims.
“That is an expensive option, particularly in today’s economy. But is that a reason for us not to do it? Absolutely not.”
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.