Warning: Some details in this story may be distressing to some people.

A Rotorua tattooist who threatened to tattoo the word 'w....” on the forehead of one of his victims has failed in a Court of Appeal bid to challenge his convictions for violent and sexual offending.

Jamie Dean Keremete​ had sought to appeal convictions for unlawful sexual connection, injuring with intent to injure, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, threatening to kill and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

He was jailed for 13-and-a-half years back in 2018 after a trial at the High Court in Rotorua, with a minimum period of imprisonment of six-years-nine-months.

The offending related to two separate victims who were in relationships with Keremete between 2006-2011 and 2015-2016.

Details of the offending Keremete was found guilty of are also spelt out in the Appeal document, noting he would become 'possessive, verbally abusive and physically violent”.

He would keep one victim confined to their flat for long periods of time, and if she attempted to leave 'he would rip her clothing from her and make her sit naked in the middle of the room”.

'On multiple occasions Mr Keremete forced the complainant to have sex, often immediately after he had assaulted her. Sometimes this occurred three or four times a day.”

Keremete would also tie one victim to the bed, and if she tried to leave, 'would punch her in the face”.

'He also threatened to tattoo ‘w....' on her forehead. She had to plead with him not to do it.”

Another incident was revealed when one of Keremete's victims had been sleeping in her car and awoke to find him next to the car 'holding a crowbar or something similar”.

'He was wearing a balaclava but lifted it showing her it was him. . . he then smashed the front window of her car, pulled [her] from the car and assaulted her.”

Keremete sought to appeal his convictions, arguing he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He claimed the original trial judge erred by joining the allegations from separate victims, that propensity evidence was unfairly used and that his defence failed to 'put his version of events” to both victims and other witnesses.

However, in their ruling the Court of Appeal judges rejected these claims.

'Had separate trials been ordered, the complainants and other Crown witnesses would have had to give their evidence and be cross-examined twice,” they said.

'There is no real risk of a miscarriage of justice in relation to the charges on which Mr Keremete was found guilty. Mr Keremete was acquitted on many of the other charges, including charges of rape. This suggests the jury has been conscientious.”

They also said issues raised by Keremete in an affidavit 'were at best peripheral; others were irrelevant and/or inadmissible.”

'Even if there was an error on the part of counsel, the issue is whether or not there was a real risk that it affected the outcome by rendering the verdicts unsafe.

'Here, we do not consider that there was any real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected and the verdicts unsafe. . . the appeal is dismissed.”

-Benn Bathgate/Stuff.