Longer prison sentence for teenage rapist Peter Kosetatino who abused strangers in Auckland park

WARNING: This article deals with the subject of rape and may be disturbing to some readers.

The original prison sentence for a 17-year-old mugger who dragged a stranger into the bushes in Auckland’s popular Albert Park and raped her was “manifestly inappropriate” and should be replaced with a longer one, a High Court judge ruled.

Peter Kosetatino was sentenced in the Auckland District Court in December for what Judge Claire Ryan described as “despicable and disgusting” conduct.

The teenager had already robbed two men in the same Auckland Central Park five days earlier in November 2022, when he and a 15-year-old accomplice confronted the pair as they strolled through the area at around 1 a.m. The victims, both schoolchildren, were on their way home after spending the evening celebrating the woman’s 21st birthday.

“The young people threatened the plaintiffs with the knives and told them not to move or they would be stabbed and to lie on the ground,” court documents say.

The defendant groped the woman while searching for items to steal. He then “immediately took the victim by the arm and led her to a nearby bush, directing her movements with a knife pointed at her.” He again threatened to stab her if she did not comply with his instructions, according to the agreed summary of facts of the case.

When the traumatized rape victim returned from the bushes with the accused a few minutes later, she attempted to negotiate a bank transfer in exchange for the safe release of her and her boyfriend, whom the 15-year-old had been keeping at bay. When her partner attempted to reason with her, the accused intervened and put his knife to the young man’s throat.

“Shut up or I’ll kill you,” he warned.

Kosetatino eventually pleaded guilty to sexual abuse by rape, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and aggravated robbery, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

At the District Court sentencing hearing in December, Judge Ryan imposed a sentence of two years, two months and one week in prison. Before announcing her decision, she lamented that she would likely face an appeal – if not from the defense for being too harsh, then from the prosecution for being too lenient. She was right on both counts.

Defense attorney Sacha Norrie had initially indicated she would appeal after the judge rejected her requests for house arrest and permanent name suppression, both based primarily on her client’s age. But by the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court last month, the defense had withdrawn both requests, and instead the Attorney General’s lawyers were asking for a longer prison sentence.

Prosecutor Zoe Hamill argued that the discounts granted by the judge were “simply too high” given the seriousness of the crimes.

Judge Ryan initially imposed nine years for the rape, but increased the sentence to 11 years and three months to take into account the robberies. She then applied a 77 percent discount – the highest she had ever considered, she noted – for a number of reductions, including his guilty pleas, his young age, the fact that he had no previous convictions and his “exemplary” efforts at rehabilitation in the months leading up to the hearing. The defense had requested a total discount of 110 percent, the judge noted.

During hearings in District Court and Supreme Court, the defense emphasized the negative impact of prison time on young offenders. The public would be better protected from their client if he could address his problems outside of prison in a therapeutically appropriate manner, Norrie said.

“I know that sentencing young people to prison is never an easy task,” wrote Judge Peter Andrew in his appeal judgment, which was announced this afternoon. “Ms Norrie’s argument that a prison sentence can have negative and counterproductive consequences, particularly for young people, is compelling.”

Ultimately, however, it is also important to take into account other principles of the Sentencing Act, such as denunciation, deterrence, victim harm and protection of the community.

“In my view, the (district) judge erred in applying those principles in this case,” he wrote.

Judge Andrew also disagreed with the defense that the district judge’s starting point had been too strict.

“As I have stressed, this was a serious offence,” he said. “It had a significant impact on public safety as it involved two offences against strangers in public, committed by two individuals, both armed with knives. In both cases there were threats of violence and the use of the knives to reinforce those threats.

“The rape at knifepoint of a citizen walking through a park in central Auckland was serious. It caused significant and lasting harm to the victim.”

Although Kosetatino was entitled to significant sentence reductions because of his young age, good character and rehabilitation efforts, the district judge should have been more cautious at the end of sentencing to ensure that the final sentence was appropriate to the seriousness of the crime, Andrew said.

“Their conclusion was very much a mathematical exercise and, in my view, a failure to step back and make the necessary overall assessment,” he added.

Judge Andrew imposed a new prison sentence of three years and eleven months.

Craig Captain is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has covered courts in three newsrooms in the United States and New Zealand since 2002.