A New Zealand high court has rejected the Crown’s appeal against a community sentence for a convicted teenage rapist – despite calling the sentence “manifestly inadequate” – sparking fresh concerns for victims of sexual violence.
Jayden Meyer, 18, was found guilty in the youth court of four counts of rape and one of sexual assault committed when he was 16, against five victims, all aged 15. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and maintained that the activity had been consensual.
In July, a district court judge sentenced Meyer to nine months home detention, followed by 12 months of judicial monitoring.
This sentencing decision provoked public outcry and dismay among sexual assault survivors and victim advocates and was followed by protests in centres across the country. It was the second case within a matter of months in which New Zealand courts handed down sentences of home detention – perceived as too lenient – in teenage rape cases.
During the process, the Crown did not seek imprisonment as punishment and endorsed a sentence of home detention. But in September, the Solicitor-General filed an appeal on the basis the sentence was “manifestly inadequate” and needed a correction. But the Crown’s appeal was filed six weeks out of the statutory window for appeal, by which point Meyer had served three months of his home detention, and six months of a 12 month youth sexual offending rehabilitative programme.
The Crown argued the sentence represented a “substantial departure from ordinary sentencing practice”, while Meyer’s defence counsel argued that the sentence was “principled and justified” because it was an extension of a sentencing process commenced in the youth court.
In her high court judgment, Justice Sarah Fitzgerald agreed the sentence was “manifestly inadequate” and that an appropriate end sentence would have been three years and five months’ imprisonment.
But Fitzgerald rejected the appeal on the basis that the Crown had not filed it in time and that “the interests of justice” were best served by declining its attempt.
“This has been a difficult decision,” Fitzgerald said. “In reaching my decision, I am also acutely aware of the position of the victims. I expect that they and their families will feel aggrieved by this outcome.”
“However, Mr Meyer, and other young men, can be under no illusion that in the ordinary course, serious sexual offending is likely to result in a sentence of imprisonment,” she said.
The Criminal Bar Association vice-president Adam Simperingham told RNZ it was “appropriate” for the court to reject the appeal, because there had been a disconnect between two Crown law offices, which led to the delay, and because Meyer had already served a third of his sentence, and had engaged in rehabilitative processes.
The managing director of Shine Lawyers, which represents sexual assault victims, Angela Parlane, told the Guardian it was very rare for the Crown to seek an appeal over a sentence, which underscored how unusual the sentence was.
The judge was hamstrung by the law, she said, noting that the time restriction on appeal was to ensure justice is served expeditiously.
That would likely come as cold comfort for the victims, she said. Multiple barriers already exist for victims of sexual violence seeking recourse through the justice system, she said, and watching a perpetrator of sexual violence be handed a lenient sentence would be “a massive blow”.
“I just feel devastated for victims of sexual crime when this type of sentence is delivered, it’s just incredibly unfair.”
The sentencing process was “really all about the offender”, Parlane said, adding that there was room for victims of sexual violence to have “more of a voice when it comes to the penalty”.
