A man convicted of raping young girls has had his appeal
against a 10-year supervision order, set to start after his
release from prison, dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Ricky Moeke was sentenced to 5-1/2 years imprisonment in 2003
for the rape of girls aged 10, 11 and 14.
He was aged 15 when he was sentenced, and served his full
sentence without parole.
Before releasing Moeke, the Corrections Department applied to
the District Court for an extended supervision order.
Psychologists' reports from his time in prison said there had
been no "treatment gains" in respect to Moeke's re-offending.
In August last year, Wellington District Court Judge Susan
Thomas granted an extended supervision order for 10 years
from Moeke's April 2009 release date.
She was satisfied 10 years was the minimum period required
for the safety of the community.
Moeke appealed the supervision order, with his lawyer, Mark
Lillico, saying seven to eight years was a more appropriate
minimum term for the supervision order.
He said Judge Thomas had failed to consider Moeke's personal
circumstances and his efforts to rehabilitate himself after
his release.
She had also failed to take into account that Moeke had spent
a large portion of his "formative years in prison", and
placed too much weight on assessment tools Moeke had been
subjected to, Mr Lillico submitted.
The Court of Appeal said Judge Thomas had analysed all the
material in front of her and had not erred in imposing the
supervision order.
There was no basis for altering the 10-year term or
substituting a seven to eight year term as proposed by Mr
Lillico, the court said, dismissing Moeke's appeal.
The court recommended that, in future, psychological reports
given to the court should fully address the minimum term
sought against criteria in the Parole Act.
Courts should also be given more assessment of post-release
plans, updated information at the extended supervision order
hearing and information on steps the offender had taken to
address risks.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.