Adams v Police - [2014] NZHC 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-463-000098 [2014] NZHC 42

BETWEEN ROSEMARY ANNE ADAMS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 February 2014

Appearances: M J Hine for Appellant
A Hill for Respondent

Judgment: 3 February 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

ADAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 42 [3 February 2014]

[1] Ms Adams pleaded guilty in the District Court to two representative charges, one of intentionally ill-treating a child1 and one of assaulting a child.2 On 1
November 2013, Judge Weir sentenced Ms Adams to one year eight months imprisonment.3 She now appeals against that sentence. She contends that the Judge ought to have sentenced her to home detention.

The facts

[2] The facts giving rise to the charges are set out in an agreed summary of facts that was produced for the purposes of sentencing in the District Court. These reveal that the victim was a young boy, who was cared for by Ms Adams from the age of approximately six weeks. When the child was two years of age, Ms Adams obtained an interim parenting order in respect of the child in her favour. This was made final on 25 September 2012. Thereafter, the victim remained in the care of Ms Adams until 22 February 2013.

[3] The offending giving rise to the charges occurred in several different ways. First, Ms Adams would force-feed the victim. This involved her placing him in a highchair and grabbing him by the chin to force his mouth open. Using a large spoon she would then force food into the victim’s mouth, and then hold his mouth closed. On occasions she would strike the victim’s cheek until he swallowed the food she had placed in his mouth.

[4] On some occasions Ms Adams used the spoon to force food into the victim’s mouth with such force that it would cause him to choke. If he did not swallow the food, she would hit him on his head or his legs with a wooden spoon until he did so. The blows to the victim’s legs were delivered with sufficient force to cause bruising on several occasions.

[5] In addition, she would grab the victim by the back of his head and force food into his mouth. Not surprisingly, this caused the victim considerable discomfort and

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 195(1).
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a).
3      New Zealand Police v Adams DC Rotorua CRI-2013-063-001918, 1 November 2013.

he would make this known by crying. Ms Adams would then hit the victim around his head, legs or bottom until such time as he stopped crying.

[6] Ms Adams also encouraged two other young persons who lived at the house to assist her in force-feeding the victim. She would arrange for them to hold the victim by his legs and arms to keep him still while she forced food into his mouth. On occasions, Ms Adams also encouraged one of these persons to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 42
Decision Date: 3 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Adams v New Zealand Police concerns the sentence imposed on Ms Adams, who pleaded guilty to charges of intentionally ill-treating a child and assaulting a child. Ms Adams was sentenced to one year and eight months imprisonment by Judge Weir in the District Court. Ms Adams appealed this sentence, arguing that she should have been sentenced to home detention instead. The court was required to decide whether the District Court Judge was correct in his approach to sentencing and whether home detention was an appropriate sentence in this case.

The court held that the District Court Judge was entitled to conclude that the seriousness of the offending warranted a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention. The court found that the offending involved a gross breach of trust by a caregiver in respect of a very young and defenceless victim. The ill-treatment took several different forms, all of which were highly inappropriate and likely to cause longstanding damage for the victim. Additionally, the offending occurred over a very lengthy period. The court found that the Judge was correct in his approach to sentencing and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

In summary, the court found that the District Court Judge was entitled to conclude that the seriousness of the offending was such that a sentence of home detention would not be an adequate deterrent to others who might consider engaging in conduct of this type. The appeal against sentence was accordingly dismissed.

Orders