Latest news with #HannahBartlett
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Joshua Oliver's victim left waiting for reparation he offered her at sentencing following sexual attack
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Joshua Oliver was sentenced to six years' and three months' imprisonment for the sexual violation of a woman. Photo: NZME / supplied Warning: This story includes details of sexual offending and may be distressing. When a woman who was sexually violated after a work party was proactively offered a reparation payment by her attacker at sentencing, she thought it would be paid "then and there". She also thought it would be the end of the matter, and she could start to move on with her life. The victim told NZME that while $2500 felt like a "pathetic amount" compared to what she'd been through, and the financial loss she'd suffered, it would be some help towards Christmas, which was then coming up. But the money didn't turn up in her account, and calls to the police and courts left her doubting if she'd ever see the money. It was only after NZME became involved that the money has now been paid, nine months after Joshua Oliver was sentenced to imprisonment, having received a 5 percent discount for remorse - a discount that took into account his offer of emotional harm reparation. While the government's Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money said she couldn't comment about specific cases, she acknowledged there were ongoing concerns about unpaid reparation. In particular, she worried sentencing took into account reparation or other offers, and yet they often did not materialise. "The judge can only take [offers] at face value, so the judiciary takes into account all offers and all signs of remorse as part of a normal sentencing process." A 'manifestation' of remorse A jury found Oliver guilty in June last year on a charge of sexual violation, for an attack while the victim was asleep and intoxicated after a work party. After an evening of socialising, the victim had gone to bed in a spare bedroom in a friend's house, only to wake to Oliver "forcefully" violating her. Her victim impact statement said it had been one of "the most extreme violations a person can endure". It left her traumatised, unable to work, and she told the court her children had lost the "carefree, happy mother they once knew". When Oliver was sentenced in October, he provided a remorse letter and made the offer of emotional harm reparation. Judge Lawson said $2500 couldn't "possibly repay the financial loss that the victim suffered, but it is an offer which I can take into account as a 'manifestation' of the remorse you've talked about". The judge was persuaded that comments Oliver made to a pre-sentence report writer, and the contents of the letter provided to the court, suggested he appreciated the impact of his actions. "Very often in cases like this, we find victims left in a state of doubt because the defendants maintain their innocence and do not accept the verdicts. Here you have accepted what you have done and that your offending has caused harm to the victim." "More than that", Oliver had made the offer of $2500 emotional harm reparation. Taking all that into account, Judge Lawson gave Oliver a 5 percent discount for remorse, as well as 10 percent for Oliver's background, to arrive at an end sentence of six years' and three months' imprisonment. He ordered the emotional harm reparation, though didn't give any specific directions about timeframe in his oral judgment. The victim said there had been a lot of "back and forth" trying to get the reparation, and she had followed up with the collections team at the court. She was told there had been an unsuccessful attempt to collect the money while Oliver was in custody, and she wouldn't get the reparation for "at least another six years, or when he gets out of prison, if [she gets it] at all". The victim told NZME that from the start, it had felt like a "pathetic amount". She'd been unable to work after the attack, and it had derailed the career she'd been pursuing. Despite that, she and her husband had seen the sentencing as the end of the process, and expected the offered reparation would be paid straight away so they could move on. "We were like, oh good, Christmas is not far away, we can actually 'do Christmas', kind of thing... but then it never came." She thought that because the money had been proactively offered, and had informed the discount, it would be paid "then and there". "If you're not gonna pay it, don't get 5 percent off... stay in prison for a few more months," she said. The victim's husband said they thought, "this is sentencing, he goes to prison. The payment is made. We move on with our lives and don't have to think about it again." Before the payment was made, the victim said chasing up the payment had made it hard to move on and put the attack, and the trial, behind her. It had felt "never-ending", she said. It was only after NZME contacted a representative for Oliver that the payment was made. However, despite several requests for comment, NZME has not received any official response about why it hadn't been paid earlier. Figures released to NZME in March, revealed unpaid reparation in the Tauranga District Court sits at $5,717,308, while the total outstanding reparation across the country is $105,678,413. Ministry of Justice National Service Delivery group manager Tracey Baguley couldn't comment on specific cases, but said when reparation was ordered in cases where a defendant was sentenced to imprisonment, the ministry would still attempt to collect the payment. That was payable within 28 days unless specific alternative timeframes were directed by the judge. "When an offender is in prison... however, enforcement options are often limited," Baguley said. Enforcement could include wages or bank account deduction, seizing property and, in some cases, suspending the offender's driver's licence. "...the legislation does not empower the court to pay the victim before it is collected from the offender; instead, the offender pays reparation, with payments enforced by the court." This is an area that Money, the government's chief victims advisor, has much to say about. When reparation went unpaid, it could cause issues with trust and confidence in the court system. It could also have a "long-lasting impact" on victims. "Either receiving little drip-fed amounts over a long period of time, as a constant reminder of their trauma," she said. "Or waiting many years, and still perhaps nothing materialising at the end of it." She had seen "many" cases where reparation had been paid swiftly, however, and where the offender had paid reparation while in prison. "Often the survivor is using that for therapy, for loss of income over missing work... it allows them to truly draw a line in the sand." She wanted to explore whether the state could pay the reparation, and then chase up the offender, rather than leaving it to victims. "That is an expensive option, particularly in today's economy. But is that a reason for us not to do it? Absolutely not." If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111. - This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald
RNZ News
22-05-2025
- RNZ News
Man accused of St Patrick's Day rape in Whakatāne says woman had been ‘flirting' with him
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of The accused rapist, who has interim name suppression, was based in Whakatāne at the time of the incident but is from overseas. Photo: NZME/Open Justice WARNING: This story includes content some readers may find disturbing. A man accused of rape says he was leaving the bathroom after sobering himself up from a night of St Patrick's Day festivities involving drinking and cannabis when he heard a female voice calling out. The woman he thought had been "flirting" and "forward" with him earlier at the pub was calling from the bedroom she shared with her fiance, in a flat that was hosting an "afterparty", he said in the Tauranga District Court this week. The man, who has chosen to give evidence, said he went in and knelt beside her bed. He told her, "I enjoyed getting to know you tonight", and claimed she responded in kind. They began kissing, he said, shared "dirty talk", and she allegedly played with his hair and removed her underwear. He performed oral sex on her and he claims she told him she wanted him to "f*** [her] on the beach", so he proceeded to have sex with her. Then the door opened, the lights came on, and the woman's fiance asked him, "What the f*** is going on?" He said the woman then "wouldn't respond" and just "groaned" when her fiance "nudged" her and said her name. The fiance accused him of having "f***ing raped" the woman. The man replied, "No, it's not what it looks like", and appealed to the woman to "tell him... tell him". But she remained silent, he said in evidence. A flatmate of the couple came in and punched the man in the face, and he said he didn't remember much of the next 24 hours. The man, who has interim name suppression, was based in Whakatāne at the time but is from overseas. He is defending a charge of rape in a trial that began on Monday. In his evidence, he spoke about events leading up to the alleged incident, which the Crown had described as "a polished recitation of a story". The man recalled a night out celebrating St Patrick's Day with good conversation, joking around and dancing. He said it marked the end of what had been a stint of working in Whakatāne and spoke about his positive experiences of exploring New Zealand. In questioning by his lawyer Phil Mitchell, he gave a full account of everything he'd drunk that night, his interactions and observations, and how he came to be found with his pants around his ankles in the woman's bedroom. Crown prosecutor Richard Jenson said the man's account was "perfect and polished". He had "tailored" it to fit the evidence and explain his actions that night, Jenson suggested. "It's not an account of a young man who's been out at the pub and has had a few drinks, and pieced together the details." The trail is being heard in the Tauranga District Court. Photo: Google Maps / Supplied The man gave evidence about his interactions with the woman that night, and how she'd continued to be flirtatious despite his drawing her attention to the engagement ring on her finger. He demonstrated what he claimed she'd done - pulling the ring to the tip of her finger, then pushing it back on as she winked at him. But the woman, who has also given evidence at trial, had no recollection of that, nor much of the evening after about 9pm. She described herself as an "attentive conversationalist", who liked to hold people's gaze, and hands, when she spoke to them. The man said in his evidence she had been "forward" and he had enjoyed her attention. "It's great to have someone flirting with you," he said. "I was single at the time." However, he said he'd struggled to "read the dynamic" given she was engaged. The woman's fiance had invited him, and others, back to their flat. His friends declined the invitation but urged him to go and "have fun", given he had finished his work in New Zealand and was now on holiday. Three of the defendant's friends, who were there that night, were called by the defence to give evidence at the trial. They described flirtatious behaviour between the pair - some specified the woman touching the man on his shoulder, chest and arms, and holding hands. Evidence has also focused on the woman's intoxication levels that night and her vomiting before the alleged incident took place. At the flat, the woman had indicated to her fiance that she needed to vomit. The defendant offered to help. The fiance said she was lying down next to her bed and needed assistance to lift her head to vomit into a bowl the man held. He said it was the most drunk he'd ever seen her, and even with his attempts to keep her hair back, it still ended up with vomit in it. However, the man said she induced herself to vomit; he said it wasn't because she was drunk, it was because she was feeling bloated and afterwards she'd been laughing about it. The man said the woman's behaviour and level of intoxication at the flat were the same as they had been earlier in the night. However, the Crown pointed to text messages the man sent to a friend after the woman vomited. It said how things were "different than he thought", and that she had vomited. The Crown suggested he must have known any "aspirations" he'd had for consensual sex were "out the window". The man disagreed. He said the fiance later went to check on the woman, after she'd left to have a shower, and had come out and said the woman was "fine". The fiance testified that when he went to find her, she was asleep in bed. The defence case is that she later called out to the defendant, and invited him in, after he'd visited the bathroom. However, the Crown said the man had sex with her while she was asleep. "If there was anything remotely consensual and mutual, you would have done the responsible thing and got a condom out that you had in your pocket," Jenson said. "No," the man said. "[It's] another point that shows us that all this was you quickly and stealthily going into her room, doing what you wanted to do, and leaving as quickly as you could," Jenson said The man denied this. The trial continues. If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111. This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
