Mervyn Stuart Perrin was jailed for 22 months in October last year after a jury in the Dunedin District Court found him guilty of two counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection following events which took place more than 15 years ago when he was a teen.
The defendant took his case to the Court of Appeal last month, arguing the sentence was "manifestly excessive" and should be converted to home detention.
Justices Collins, Venning and Gendall, in a decision released yesterday, however, dismissed the legal challenge.
The incident which led to the charges took place when the victim, along with her siblings, went to Perrin’s house to see his mother.
He was the only one home and after ushering the other children into a room to play on a computer, he took the victim to another part of the house.
There he committed the two violations.
Afterwards, Perrin told her not to tell anyone what had happened, and she kept the trauma a secret for years before making a police complaint.
In a statement, she told the court the ordeal affected her every day.
She told the court she began self-harming at 14, "to express the hatred I had towards myself".
Though she experienced periods of stability, things declined sharply in her late teens and she described using alcohol and medication to numb her pain.
The victim had repeatedly been admitted to mental health clinics since.
She told the court she forgave Perrin, "but I will never forget".
Counsel John Westgate took issue with the decision of sentencing Judge David Robinson but Justice David Collins disagreed.
"We acknowledge that at the time of the offending Mr Perrin was either 18 or 19 years old and that in all likelihood he lacked the cognitive maturity to resist his impulses and to appreciate the gravity of his offending. Judge Robinson fully understood these considerations when sentencing Mr Perrin," he said.
"The age and vulnerability of [the victim] at the time of the offending and the enormous impact of Mr Perrin’s offending on [her] significantly outweigh the mitigating factors advanced on behalf of Mr Perrin.
"The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Mr Perrin was not manifestly unjust or excessive. On the contrary, it was an orthodox sentence that properly reflected the gravity of Mr Perrin’s offending."
