A man, who has been in and out of jail for sex offences against two young women, has lost his appeal against his five-year extended supervision order set to start on December 2020.
Penisimani Ta’akimoeaka, 38, was convicted in 2005, when he was 17, of serious sexual offending against a 16-year-old young woman after entering her house without consent.
He was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment for that offending and released in October 2010.
In 2013, five months after the expiry of his release conditions, Mr Taakimoeaka climbed through a window of a house in Picton, South Island where two 16-year-old young women were sleeping and sexually assaulted one of them.
He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of seven years and six months for assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape, five years and six months for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and 12 months for each of the three charges of indecent assault.
The sentencing Judge said Mr Taakimoeaka had come “perilously close” to being sentenced to preventive detention.
Mr Taakimoeaka, who was reportedly living in Canterbury, argued that the two incidents of sexual offending fail to reach the “pervasive pattern” threshold.
He believed the Court of Appeal placed too much weight on the views of the health assessor in concluding there was a pervasive pattern. He also said that the Court of Appeal erred by deciding that there was an intense drive and a predilection for serious sexual offending on the basis of his prior offending alone as opposed to undertaking a current assessment of the individual.
The Supreme Court judge in a judgement released on Friday December 10, 2021 said, “The matters Mr Taakimoeaka seeks to raise are essentially issues related to the particular facts of this case.
“No point of general or public importance arises. His challenge to the imposition of the ESO was carefully considered by the Court of Appeal and nothing raised suggests that the Court’s analysis may have been wrong.
“There is thus no risk of a miscarriage of justice. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed”.
