Why did High Court appeal against rapist Jayden Meyer’s sentence of home detention fail? | T-10 NEWS

Jayden Desmond Meyer raped four 15-year-old girls and sexually violated a fifth, but was sentenced to just nine months’ home detention for the offending that took place when he was 16.

It was a sentence
that set off a wave of protests, across five cities, calling for tougher sentences and an end to rape culture.

That outrage was re-stoked when High Court Justice Sally Fitzgerald this week called the sentence “manifestly inadequate”, but stopped short of ruling in favour of an appeal sought by deputy Solicitor General Madeleine Laracy.

The case’s “unique circumstances” meant justice was best served by sticking with Tauranga District Court Judge Christopher Harding’s original sentence, Justice Fitzgerald ruled.

What went wrong?

There were several reasons Meyer avoided the years-long stint in the slammer usually given to rapists, criminal law expert Chris Gallavin told The Mike Hosking Breakfast.

One was that until the sentencing appeal, the Crown never asked for Meyer to be jailed for his offending, for which he was convicted after being found guilty – not by admission but by a judge.

The teen had been charged with four counts of rape, four of sexual violation and two of doing an indecent act after a spree of sexual violence in Bay of Plenty in 2020 and 2021.

“They only asked for [imprisonment] when they appealed it.”

The appeal was also filed six weeks late, raising further concerns, said Gallavin, an adjunct professor of law at Massey University.

“[Justice Fitzgerald] was very concerned that there was no real reason why it was filed late.”

During a court hearing last week, Laracy, the deputy Solicitor General, called Harding and the Crown prosecutor’s conclusions flawed and said imprisonment was the most appropriate sentence.

But Meyer’s lawyer Rachael Adams, who had previously described her client as “perhaps the most vilified man in New Zealand”, said it was hard to see the appeal as anything other than the Crown reacting to public outrage.

The Solicitor General – first made aware of the case a day after Open Justice reported Meyer’s sentence – has said the appeal wasn’t in response to protests, but on the merits of the sentence.

Courts were normally reluctant to reverse a non-custodial sentence in favour of a custodial one, Gallavin said.

“I know this has gotta be balanced against the severity of the crime, but as you can imagine the emotional rollercoaster the defendant goes through – having been sentenced not to imprisonment – for them to be dragged back through, with all the power of the state behind it, is something the courts will only do in very limited circumstances.”

The Crown didn’t, until the sentencing appeal, want Meyer jailed, he said.

A prison sentence – “and indeed one of many years” – would be the ordinary sentence for the kind of offending Meyer committed, Crown prosecutor Anna Pollett said at the time, but she shared defence counsel Adams’ view that home detention was more appropriate.

So why did Judge Harding agree?

It was “undoubtedly correct” jail was a typical sentence for offending such as Meyer’s, Judge Harding said in his sentencing decision.

But Harding’s written decision didn’t explain how he decided home detention would be appropriate.

“I accept the probation report and the submissions of counsel that home detention on all charges is the appropriate outcome”, it reads.

Justice Fitzgerald’s response was blunt.

It was “an error of law” for the sentencing to proceed as it had, with the resulting sentence “manifestly inadequate”.

The judge’s decision not to engage in an orthodox sentencing analysis “obscures the reality of this conclusion”, she said.

Although Harding was supported by the Crown in his approach, his sentencing exercise had lacked transparency, and that was damaging, Justice Fitzgerald said.

“[That] in turn undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.”

Justice Fitzgerald clearly wasn’t happy with Meyer’s sentence. So why didn’t she change it?

She didn’t change it, but she did fix some of the failings that left people feeling confused and let down.

The judge did this by following the sentencing process the District Court had not, Gallavin said.

Starting with a presumption of 10 years’ jail, Justice Fitzgerald cut that number to 3.5 years, taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

“And [she] said, ‘actually this is something that should’ve been subject to 3.5 years [jail].”

But the lack of reason for the appeal, its lateness, the fact Meyer was already more than a third of the way through his sentence and, crucially, was attending a sexual violence rehabilitation programme, convinced her to reject the sentencing appeal.

The latter was a “particularly important factor”, Justice Fitzgerald said.

A psychologist, who saw Meyer 30 times before his sentencing, found the now 18-year-old had a medium risk of reoffending and continued to minimise the effect of his crimes.

Jail – which would make the logistics of continuing rehabilitation difficult – could undermine his progress so far, the Justice said.

“This is a particularly important factor in my view.”

What’s the impact?

The “whole system” has failed the victims, Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury told Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby.

“And admittedly [it’s] probably failed him as well.

“I’m reluctant to speak for him. I’m more worried about those young women who have been totally let down.”

In the most graphic of his attacks, Meyer raped an intoxicated teen in a bush after they’d been at a party.

The teen, a virgin, “protested to no avail”, according to Judge Harding’s sentencing decision.

One victim was raped while sleeping, while on another occasion Meyer filmed a young woman being raped.

The blast zone from the justice system failures would be wide.

Most sexual offending was never reported, and the Meyer case would only heighten the barrier to speaking up, Jury said.

“If [people] don’t think there’s going to be a realistic and just response to what’s happened to them, why put themselves through what is a really unpleasant business.”

Sexual harm – Where to get help
If it’s an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
If you’ve ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to talk to someone, contact Safe to Talk confidentially, any time 24/7:
• Call 0800 044 334
• Text 4334
• Email support@safetotalk.nz
• For more info or to web chat visit safetotalk.nz
Alternatively contact your local police station – click here for a list.
If you have been sexually assaulted, remember it’s not your fault.