Legal Research
Cases
L v The King

L v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 3794 19 December 2023

Causation

Negligence

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Miscarriage of Justice

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2022-454-5

[2023] NZHC 3794

BETWEEN
L

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 December 2023

Appearances:

C M Ruane (via VMA) for the Appellant I R Murray for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 December 2023 at 4:00 m.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr C M Ruane, Barrister, Christchurch Mr I R Murray, Barrister, Wellington Crown Law, Wellington (for respondent)

L v R [2023] NZHC 3794 [19 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 18 March 2021, following a judge-alone trial in the Palmerston North District Court, Judge Edwards found the appellant, Ms L, guilty1 of the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.2 The appellant had also pleaded guilty to a charge of neglect of a child.3 On 22 October 2021, the appellant was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment, with a further two years’ imprisonment on the neglect charge.

[2] No appeal is now pursued against the sentence imposed. However, the appellant appeals her conviction. In particular, the appellant submits the evidence relied on by the Judge was insufficient for her to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt.

Background to the offending

[3] The charges arose following Ms L’s 11-year-old son I being taken to Palmerston North Hospital on 19 May 2019 with serious burns to around 25 per cent of his body. He was transferred to the National Burns Centre at Middlemore Hospital the following day.

[4] When I was admitted to Palmerston North Hospital, staff were concerned that his burns were not consistent with his mother’s account of how they had occurred, namely that on 14 May 2019, I had been cooking pasta when he tripped and spilled the pot of boiling water and pasta on himself. Police and Oranga Tamariki conducted a joint investigation and obtained evidence that Ms L had been purchasing items used to treat I’s burns at home from 9 May 2019 onwards. Ms L was then charged with ill- treating I by failing to seek appropriate medical assistance for him, to which she subsequently pleaded guilty.

[5] I was discharged into the care of an Oranga Tamariki-approved caregiver in mid-August. Within a few days of arriving, I told her that he did not get burnt from

1      R v L [2021] NZDC 4906 [conviction decision].
2      Crimes Act, s 188(1) – maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 195 – maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

the pasta, but that his mother had poured boiling water on him from a kettle while he was lying on plastic she had put down on his brother’s bed. He said he had not told anyone because he was scared his mother would…

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 [2023] NZHC 3794
Case: [2023] NZHC 3794
Decision Date: 19 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of L v The King, the appellant, Ms L, appealed against her conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to her 11-year-old son, I, and neglect of a child. Ms L was found guilty following a trial by Judge Edwards in the Palmerston North District Court, and subsequently sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm charge, and two years’ imprisonment for the neglect charge. The appeal focused on the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to determine whether the Judge erred in her assessment of the evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the evidence relied upon by the Judge was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the unreliability of I’s account of the events.

The High Court considered the appellant's submissions that the Judge should have found I to be an unreliable witness and that the medical evidence provided by Mr Wong-She was not sufficiently reliable to prove the charge. The Court examined the evidence presented during the trial, including I’s evidential video interview, the expert medical opinion of Mr Wong-She, and other corroborative evidence. The Judge had carefully weighed the reliability of I’s account, despite its inconsistencies, and found it sufficiently credible when considered alongside the other evidence. The medical evidence provided by Mr Wong-She, who concluded that the burns were more likely caused by boiling water being poured on I while he was restrained, was deemed reliable and sufficient to support the Judge’s findings.

The High Court concluded that the Judge did not err in her assessment of the evidence. The Judge had appropriately considered the challenges to I’s credibility and still found his account sufficiently reliable. The expert medical evidence provided by Mr Wong-She was found to be credible and sufficiently supported the conclusion that the burns were caused by boiling water poured on I while restrained. The Court found that there was no real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected, and the verdict was not unsafe. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Final orders:
1. The appellant’s appeal against her conviction is dismissed.

Orders