Legal Research
Cases
L v The King

L v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3465 20 November 2024

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REDACTED TO COMPLY WITH S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
align="center">ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES AND THE CHILD(REN).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-241 [2024] NZHC 3465

BETWEEN L
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 13 November 2024

Appearances: P B McMenamin for Appellant
M W Fulton for Crown

Judgment: 20 November 2024

Reissued: 4 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against conviction and sentence)
This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

L v R [2024] NZHC 3465 [20 November 2024]

Introduction

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of two charges of assault on a child, her 13-year-old daughter.¹ She was sentenced by Judge Couch to 12 months’ home detention with special conditions.²

[2] The appellant appeals her convictions and sentence contending that she should have been discharged without conviction. Alternatively, it is submitted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The facts

Charge 1

[3] The appellant was living with her 13-year-old daughter in Christchurch. When the appellant went to wake her daughter for school at around 7 am on the morning of 3 April 2023, she saw empty blister packs of medication and vomit beside her daughter’s bed. The daughter told the appellant she had taken a large quantity of the appellant’s medication the previous night in a suicide attempt.

[4] The appellant became angry and yelled at the victim. She dragged her by her hair down the hallway and into the bathroom. The victim hit her head on a door handle. While on the bathroom floor, the appellant grabbed the victim’s hair and slammed the left side of her head against the bathroom door three times.

[5] The appellant then pulled the victim into her bedroom where she used her fist/forearm to hit the victim over her head nine or 10 times. She then kicked the right side of her daughter’s jaw, stomped on her stomach and ribs and kicked her on the head, shoulder and bottom.

[6] When the victim went into her bedroom to get changed, the appellant followed and pushed her onto the bed. She held her down with one hand and with the other grabbed a necklace chain (approximately one centimetre thick) and whipped it against

¹ Crimes Act 1961, s 194(a) — maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
² R v L [2024] NZDC 21375.

the victim’s shoulder/arm and left leg about six times until the chain broke. The victim left the address to walk to the local petrol station and called the police.

[7] The summary of facts records that as a result of the 3 April 2023 assault, the victim suffered multiple bruises on her left arm, shoulder blade, and on her back. The assault with the necklace left red, raised marks with a distinct…

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.

Continue reading L v The King

Details

AGLC: L v The King [2024] NZHC 3465
Case: [2024] NZHC 3465
Decision Date: 20 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In L v The King, the appellant, L, appealed both her conviction and the sentence imposed on her by the District Court. L was convicted of two charges of assault on a child, her 13-year-old daughter, and was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention with special conditions. The appeal was heard by Justice Eaton in the Christchurch Registry of the High Court. L contended that she should have been discharged without conviction and, in the alternative, that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether a discharge without conviction was appropriate under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. To determine if a discharge without conviction was appropriate, the court needed to consider the gravity of the offending, the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction, and whether those consequences would be out of all proportion to the offending. In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court had to determine if the sentence imposed was within the available range and could be justified on the application of relevant sentencing principles.

The court found that the offending was serious, involving multiple assaults against a highly vulnerable young person. However, the court disagreed with the District Court’s characterisation of the physical injuries as an aggravating factor, noting that the medical evidence suggested the injuries were superficial. The court also found that the consequences of a conviction, while likely to impede L’s employment prospects in the mental health sector, were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that the starting point adopted by the District Court was excessive and that the appropriate starting point should be around 18 months’ imprisonment. After considering the mitigating factors, the court concluded that a sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment was appropriate, but found that community detention coupled with supervision would be the least restrictive appropriate outcome.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence of 12 months’ home detention was quashed and substituted by a sentence of four months’ community detention with a curfew and 12 months’ supervision under the same special conditions as were imposed on the home detention sentence.

Orders