[ad_1]
Jayden Meyer’s home detention sentence for the rape of four young women earlier this year sparked public outrage across New Zealand, and a subsequent appeal by the Crown said it involved ‘significant errors’. So has justice for the victims been served? Annemarie Quill reports.
Who is Jayden Meyer?
Tauranga man Jayden Meyer was found guilty in July this year of raping four young women and sexually violating another.
The offending took place during 2020 and 2021 when Meyer was 16 and the girls were 15.
Meyer, now 18, received a nine-month home detention sentence which he is understood to be serving at a family residence in Auckland.
READ MORE:
* More than 1000 protest against sentence for rapist
* ‘No justice. Disgusting’: Friend of teenage girls who were raped leads protest
* Judge declines to take internet off ‘most vilified man in New Zealand’ Jayden Meyer
Why has this case sparked public outrage?
After details of the case were revealed, Meyer’s sentence was perceived by some to be excessively lenient.
A protest organised in Mount Maunganui initiated a series of similar protests across Aotearoa in September – in Mount Maunganui, Hamilton, Whanganui, Auckland, Wellington, New Plymouth, Gisborne and Taupō. Thousands of men and women took to the streets to demand justice.
The victims and their families also made their stance clear. A statement released to media on behalf of the victims highlighted the “horrors” of both Meyer’s actions and the mental strain of enduring a drawn-out court process.
“Life doesn’t prepare you for the horrors other’s actions can inflict,” read the statement. “Nor does it prepare you for the mental strain 16 months through the courts can cause.
“This boy’s actions have caused a lifetime of trauma and hurt. It requires strength and bravery to stand up against one who once made you feel so small and vulnerable.”
A petition, “Jayden Meyer deserves more than home detention”, has so far gathered more than 39,000 signatures.
STUFF
“No justice, no peace” is one of the many chants among the hundreds of protesters in Mt Maunganui.
Is nine months’ home detention a light sentence for rape?
Potentially. Rape and sexual violation attract a maximum penalty of 20 years, while indecent assault is a maximum of seven years. This may be adjusted according to various factors (see below).
How do judges arrive at their decisions?
University of Canterbury associate professor in law, Debra Wilson, explains that it is a formulaic process for the judge to identify a starting point.
To do this, they look at the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, the maximum sentence for the offences, and the kinds of sentences that have been handed down for similar offending.
Where there are multiple offences to be sentenced for, as in Meyer’s case, Wilson explained that the judge doesn’t add it all up as happens in the United States, but sets a starting point that reflects the ‘totality of the offending’.
In a recent rape case in Auckland, involving a 19-year-old with similar offending, the starting point was given as seven-and-a-half years. In that case, although the prosecuting lawyer argued that a sentence of imprisonment was needed to mark the serious offending, discounts for the teenager’s youth, his early guilty pleas and his mental health meant the judge imposed a year’s home detention and a year’s intensive supervision.
Once a starting point is identified, the judge moves this up or down depending on aggravating and mitigating factors.
“The use of violence, the age of the victims, and the vulnerability of the victims should all operate to increase the sentence from the starting point,” said Wilson.
The age of the offender, any prior good character, and whether they show remorse can lower the sentence.
When can home detention be an option instead of prison?
If the final sentence is two years’ imprisonment or less, home detention can be considered.
If home detention is granted, the period of home detention will be half that of the prison term (so a two-year prison sentence is equivalent to one year home detention).
The reason for this is that a person sentenced to two years’ imprisonment or less will be automatically released after serving half of it, and will spend the rest in the community subject to conditions (such as parole).
Given that Meyer was sentenced to nine months’ home detention, he would have had 18 months imprisonment as a final sentence.
But why was this starting point so low?
Wilson said the issue with this case is that it has not been explained how the judge arrived at this starting point.
“When it decided to appeal, the Crown noted that there was no starting point given, nor adjustments,” she said. “There was also no explanation as to why home detention was granted.
“The Crown is arguing on appeal that an eight-year starting point is appropriate, reduced to three years taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. He would not, therefore, have been eligible for home detention.”
What records must the judge keep of how a sentence is arrived at?
Wilson said judges are supposed to set out full details of each step, so that it is clear how a starting point was reached. They should also note what aggravating or mitigating factors are relevant, what reductions and the reason for any such reduction, and the reason why home detention was considered.
“This is so the public can understand the reasoning, and both sides can decide whether to appeal,” said Wilson.
“This doesn’t always happen in practice, though – particularly when both sides have indicated that they are on the same page as regards to the penalty (as was the case here). They definitely should do, but judges hear a lot of cases.”
Why did the Crown originally agree to a non-custodial sentence then?
Wilson said this is not clear.
“Apparently, the Crown stated immediately after he was found guilty that they would not be seeking imprisonment,” she said. “I think perhaps his age was a relevant factor.
“Also relevant might be the belief that sending a young sex offender to prison might see him learn from more experienced sex offenders. This was the language of expert advice given to the court in April in relation to the 19-year-old Auckland sex offender.
“I also think maybe they thought there was a higher chance of rehabilitation with a community-based sentence.”
Wilson said there is no formal bargaining between the Crown and defence.
“I wouldn’t use the phrase that the Crown and defence ‘agreed’ – this suggests they got together and decided, then informed the judge (like a US plea bargain). This doesn’t happen in New Zealand (officially).
“During a sentencing hearing, each would tell the judge what they are thinking in terms of sentence, and they both would have said that imprisonment is not necessary.”
The reasons for the sentence are further complicated by the fact that some aspects of the case cannot be reported for legal reasons due to Meyer’s age at the time of the offending. Although sentencing took place in Tauranga District Court, the case had been transferred from Youth Court. By law, Youth Court cases are closed to the public and media.
Tauranga Crown Solicitor Anna Pollett said Jayden Meyer was prosecuted by the Crown Solicitor in the Youth Court at Tauranga between February 8-15, 2022.
In a statement to media on September 8, Pollet said that during that judge-alone trial the five victims gave evidence and, as a result, Meyer was convicted of 10 sexual offences including sexual violation by rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and indecent assault.
Pollett said when the charges were proved, the Crown applied to transfer Meyer from Youth Court to the District Court to be convicted and for sentencing. She said the reasons for this were for “a greater range of sentencing options which would provide for longer rehabilitative measures to be imposed”.
She also said the Crown did not oppose a sentence of home detention “to balance the need for accountability and deterrence while also maximising the opportunity for intensive rehabilitation of the young person”.
She also pointed to conditions attached to the sentence to ensure compliance and engagement with a rehabilitation programme, post-detention conditions, and judicial monitoring to ensure compliance with the sentence.
How is the Crown now appealing the sentence?
An appeal, filed by deputy solicitor-general Madeleine Laracy, was heard in the Rotorua High Court this week arguing there were “significant errors” on the part of both the sentencing judge, Judge Christopher Harding, and the prosecution lawyer.
Laracy argued the sentence was “manifestly inadequate”, and that Meyer should spend a minimum of three years behind bars considering the seriousness of his crimes, the fact he had shown no remorse, and had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Again, as above, further details regarding the background of the case cannot be reported on for legal reasons regarding Youth Court.
Why the U turn?
The Crown has the right to appeal a sentence, the same way the offender has the right to an appeal. Wilson said it is not common, though, and requires approval from the Solicitor General.
“What is interesting here is that the Crown said immediately after the sentencing that it would not appeal,” she said.
Both sides also have the limited amount of time to appeal of 20 working days, so that both sides know where they stand.
“In this case, the Crown filed the appeal six weeks late, which means they had to ask permission from the court to appeal,” said Wilson. “This was granted.”
Wilson believes the public protests may have influenced this. “They had already announced that they would not appeal, but changed their minds after the public protests and the petition for appeal.”
However, deputy solicitor-general Madeleine Laracy said the appeal had nothing to do with heightened media interest around the case or the public perception that the sentence was too light.
Laracy said the Crown Law Office was notified about a possible appeal on September 7, and there was an “appearance the law has not been even-handed in this case”.
What is going to happen?
We don’t know yet. The appeal was heard by Justice Sally Fitzgerald who reserved her decision.
What factors will Judge Fitzgerald have to weigh up?
According to Wilson, the question on appeal is whether the sentence imposed is ‘manifestly unjust’ or, to put it another way, whether it is massively out of line with sentences given to similar offenders, or whether such a sentence could not possibly have been reached on the facts of the case.
Meyer’s lawyer, Rachael Adams, opposed the appeal saying it would cause further trauma to her client who understood he would be receiving a sentence of home detention and had been undergoing counselling.
Wilson said it is very hard to get into a sex offender rehab programme in prison.
“The waiting lists are very long,” she said. “If Meyer didn’t get home detention, he would have got 18 months’ imprisonment, released after nine months. The chances of him getting into a rehab programme in those nine months is incredibly low, and even if he did, a couple of months is not long enough to do much.”
“The sentence of nine-months’ home detention plus 18 months’ conditions means over two years in a rehab programme in the community. If your focus is on rehabilitating Meyer, this is the best option.”
Fitzgerald will also be considering the legal precedents which may be set in her decision – if errors have, in fact, been made, and she does not change the sentence, what precedent could this set for future sexual violence sentences and future appeals of such sentences.
“We’ve seen the results,” said Wilson. “The public don’t understand, or think it is fair. The victims are left feeling like justice has not been served.”
[ad_2]
Source link