A Gloriavale man convicted of abusing a young child can now be identified after losing his fight for permanent name suppression.
At the Greymouth District Court on June 23, 2022, Joseph Hope was sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment on a charge of sexual violation and three charges of indecent assault on a girl under 12 years old.
The victim described being abused over a one- to two-year period. The court heard that when Hope found out the victim had spoken to Oranga Tamariki, he “presented himself voluntarily to the police station … claiming full responsibility for his actions”.
Hope apologised to the victim in person before making the decision to go and speak to police.
He appealed against the sentence, claiming the starting point was too high and further discounts were available for co-operation with the authorities and previous good character.
Hope suggested home detention was appropriate.
Discounts were given to Hope’s sentence for his guilty plea, co-operation with the police, emotional harm reparation payments, remorse, willingness to rehabilitate and the consequences the offending had on his family.
On reviewing the sentencing, High Court Judge Justice Jonathan Eaton said the victim was a vulnerable child and the offending constituted a significant breach of trust.
“Stepping back and considering all of the circumstances, the end sentence is not manifestly excessive. This is especially apparent when the overall discount applied by the Judge, being 50%, is taken into account,” said Justice Eaton.
Justice Eaton considered the discount applied for co-operation with the authorities was adequate to reflect the limited value of assistance it gave, given Hope only confessed after he found out the victim had spoken to Oranga Tamariki.
He noted Hope had no previous convictions, and the character evidence put before the sentencing Judge was “impressive”.
“Mr Hope had made a significant contribution to his community. I accept the offending was out of character,” Justice Eaton said.
“I also acknowledge Mr Hope ceased offending absent formal intervention and has lived a blameless life since.”
Justice Eaton says he would have allowed a further 5% discount for Hope’s previous good character but determined that adjusting the sentence to reflect this would amount to tinkering, and it is the end sentence imposed that should be considered.
Justice Eaton dismissed the appeal against Hope’s sentence, outlining that even if further credits were allowed, he would not have commuted the sentence to one of home detention.
“I do not accept that the applicable sentencing purposes of accountability, denunciation and deterrence and, of course, rehabilitation, are appropriately met by a sentence of home detention in this case, which involves repeated sexual abuse of a young and vulnerable child,” he said.
An appeal was also made against the refusal to grant Hope permanent name suppression, with his lawyer arguing he would suffer “extreme hardship”.
Justice Eaton found that “no evidence was provided, or persuasive submission advanced, of any particular extreme hardship to Mr Hope or his family beyond that which would normally stem from publication of a defendant’s name”.
“I have found the victim is unlikely to be identified from the publication of Mr Hope’s name,” he said.
Hope has decided not to further appeal the name suppression decision.
SHARE ME