Mulford v The King - [2025] NZCA 444

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF ANY

MATERIAL REFERRING TO SPECIFIED BACKGROUND FACTS

REMAINS IN FORCE: SEE [1], n 1 OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA171/2025

[2025] NZCA 444

BETWEEN JESSICA MULFORD
Appellant
AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing:	29 July 2025
Court:	French P, Jagose and Gault JJ
Counsel:	N M Dutch for Appellant
A J Ewing for Respondent
Introduction

Ms Mulford was convicted at trial of the manslaughter of a two year old child.

The trial Judge, Campbell J, sentenced her to a term of imprisonment of five years and

seven months.[1]

[1] R v Mulford [2025] NZHC 249 [sentencing notes]. At sentencing, the Judge made an order under

The jury also found Ms Mulford guilty of injuring the same child with intent

to injure by strangling her on an earlier occasion some five months prior to her death.

On that charge, the Judge convicted and discharged Ms Mulford due to the effect of

s 18 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Ms Mulford now appeals the manslaughter sentence.
On her behalf, counsel Mr Dutch contended the sentence was manifestly

excessive because (1) the Judge’s starting point was too high and incorrectly took into

account the injuring with intent to injure offending; and (2) insufficient discounts were

given for personal mitigating factors. Mr Dutch invited us to set aside the sentence

and replace it with a prison term of two years and six or eight months.

Background

The child, whose name was Harlee-Rose Niven, was the daughter of

Ms Mulford’s partner. According to his evidence at trial, prior to Harlee-Rose’s birth

he and Ms Mulford had agreed their relationship would not be exclusive.

For the first 18 months of her life, Harlee-Rose lived with her mother. Then in

August 2021 she came to live with her father with the result that Ms Mulford at age 17

became a primary caregiver.

As the Crown acknowledges, Ms Mulford at times cared well for Harlee-Rose

but she also struggled with parenting and resented having to look after someone else’s

child.

On 9 November 2021, Ms Mulford strangled Harlee-Rose, injuring the back of

her neck and causing the whole of her face to swell and discolour. There was also

bruising to Harlee-Rose’s earlobe consistent with pinching. Harlee-Rose was taken to

hospital. Ms Mulford lied to the medical staff and others about the cause of the

injuries, falsely claiming that she had fallen from a deck.

Five months later, on 9 April 2022, Ms Mulford (by that time aged 18) killed

Harlee-Rose by applying such force to the child’s abdomen that it ruptured her internal

organs. The little girl suffered a large laceration to her liver, meaning (as the forensic

pathologist put it at trial) that the liver was effectively torn in two, as was her pancreas.

The small bowel was also lacerated. Harlee-Rose was rendered unconscious within

minutes and later died in hospital.

Ms Mulford again attempted to conceal what she…

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 Mulford v The King

Details

AGLC: Mulford v The King [2025] NZCA 444
Case: [2025] NZCA 444
Decision Date: 2 September 2025 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Jessica Mulford, was convicted of manslaughter of a two-year-old child and sought to appeal her sentence of five years and seven months’ imprisonment. Mulford's counsel argued that the starting point for sentencing was too high and that insufficient discounts were given for personal mitigating factors. The Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal raised two primary legal issues: whether the starting point of seven years was too high and whether the discounts for personal mitigating factors were sufficient. The Court found that the starting point was within the appropriate range, noting that the violence inflicted on the child was extreme and that the strangulation incident was properly considered an aggravating feature. Regarding the discounts, while another judge might have given a slightly greater discount, the Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the extreme violence against a defenceless child. The appeal was dismissed. The Court did not find that the sentence was manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence.

Orders