He was sentenced on the five charges in the Hamilton District Court today, where Judge Philip Crayton explained that he couldn’t send him to jail by law due to his age at the time.
“As a result you are not liable to be jailed whatever the view the judge takes of the gravity [of offending] and whatever the start point would be, had you been slightly older,” the judge said at the start of his sentencing.
The 20-year-old was sentenced to six months' community detention – the maximum, 12 months' supervision and ordered to pay $1500 emotional harm reparation.
‘That’s my boy'
He wasn’t alone in his sexual offending against the girl. A co-offender, CJ Sampiano, was sentenced in December 2023 to 10 months’ home detention for his offending.
He forced the victim to perform oral sex on him then filmed her having sex with him in the backseat of a car. Sampiano encouraged him, saying “get into it” and “that’s my boy”.
The teen first met the girl in September 2022 and he and two others picked her up from her friend’s house and drove her to Hamilton Lake.
They socialised together in a carpark, and he dropped her friend home, but he asked the victim to stay with him and his two co-offenders.
He drove her to Callum Brae park, reclined her seat right back, and the pair lay either side. They all smoked cannabis and the victim began to feel intoxicated by it.
He began stroking the girl’s hair, as a co-offender held her shoulders down and after the pair laughed, he then had sexual intercourse with her as she was held down.
His co-offender also had sex with her before they dropped her home.
The similar scenario happened three more times, with the victim being plied with cannabis, and on occasions she unsuccessfully tried to push him off her.
‘Reparation won’t quantify the harm'
Judge Crayton said there were “a number of significant aggravating features”, including the high degree of premeditation, reflected by the location and use of cannabis, and that she was vulnerable due to her age and state of drug intoxication and the fact there were three offenders and she was alone.
There were also five incidents, and elements of degradation and demeaning behaviour due to the use of cellphones.
No contraception was used.
If the defendant had been older, Judge Crayton said he would have taken a three-and-a-half to four-year starting point.
Instead, he took into account that he had not appeared in court before and was young. He’d been on electronically monitored bail since January last year and there’d been no issues.
He was also now in a relationship and expecting his first child.
“You are able to have imposed on you community detention and supervision.
“The community detention will provide a punitive aspect and supervision will provide, it’s hoped, a framework ... so that there are no more victims as you become a father.”
The next issue was reparation.
The man’s counsel, Glen Prentice, was concerned that any payment would be “drip-fed” as his client wasn’t working and on a benefit, so it could lead to re-victimisation.
“That’s probably worse, sir,” Prentice said.
However, while the judge agreed, he ordered a $1500 payment be made and said he hoped it would instead remind the defendant of his actions each time the money came out.
“It can never quantify the harm, but it is a form of reparation that can only be a token.”
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 20.
