Parangi v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 229

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA203/2019
[2019] NZCA 229

BETWEEN	DONNA CATHERINE PARANGI Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	22 May 2019
Court:	Kós P, Peters and Mander JJ
Counsel:	S J Gray for Appellant J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	18 June 2019 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Peters J)

Following a jury trial Ms Parangi was convicted of the November 2015 manslaughter of her eight-month-old grandson, Isaiah.[1] In May 2019, Fitzgerald J sentenced Ms Parangi to two years, six months’ imprisonment.[2] Ms Parangi appeals against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
[1]Crimes Act 1961, ss 157, 160(2)(b), 171, and 177. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
[2]R v Parangi [2019] NZHC 996 [Sentencing notes].
The Judge adopted a starting point of three years, eight months’ imprisonment,[3] and then gave a discount of 30 per cent, or 14 months, to take account of Ms Parangi’s prior good character (15 per cent), the fact that her state of health would make serving a sentence of imprisonment more difficult than would otherwise be the case (10 per cent), and for compassionate and cultural reasons (5 per cent).[4]
[3]At [44].
[4]At [64]–[65].
Ms Parangi’s case on appeal is that the Judge’s starting point was too high and that in consequence the sentence is manifestly excessive. She does not contest the discount the Judge allowed for personal mitigating factors.

Facts

Ms Parangi lived in Ruatoki with her partner, and her daughter Ms Te Whetu, Ms Te Whetu’s partner, Mr Neil, and their three children, including Isaiah.
On 2 November 2015, Ms Parangi and Ms Te Whetu drove to Kawerau to buy synthetic cannabis, to which both were addicted. Isaiah was with them, and asleep in his car seat when they returned home at about 12.30 pm. Ms Parangi told Ms Te Whetu to leave Isaiah asleep in the car and the two then went inside.
The evidence was to the effect that Ms Te Whetu parked the car in the backyard of the house and in full sun, with the windows, doors and sunroof closed. The temperature in Ruatoki that day was approximately 21 degrees Celsius and the temperature inside the car would have reached at least 41 degrees Celsius within 45 minutes or thereabouts.
After going inside, Ms Te Whetu consumed synthetic cannabis and went to bed. Mr Neil did likewise. None of this was unexpected. Ms Parangi attended to some household chores, and then she too smoked synthetic cannabis and fell asleep on the couch. This also was not unexpected. The Judge was satisfied that none of these adults checked on Isaiah before Mr Neil got Isaiah out of the car between 2.45 pm and 3 pm that afternoon.[5]
[5]At [13], [15] and [18].
Mr Neil’s evidence was that Isaiah was hot, sweaty, and appeared lifeless when retrieved. He took Isaiah inside, laid…

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 Parangi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Parangi v The Queen [2019] NZCA 229
Case: [2019] NZCA 229
Decision Date: 18 June 2019 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna Catherine Parangi was convicted of the manslaughter of her eight-month-old grandson, Isaiah, who died from dehydration and hyperthermia after being left in a car for several hours. Parangi appealed against the two-and-a-half-year imprisonment sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Kos P, Peters, and Mander JJ. The central legal issue was whether the starting point for sentencing, from which the discount for mitigating factors was deducted, was appropriately determined and whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the starting point of three years and eight months was appropriate given the circumstances. The Judge had considered Parangi’s culpability, which included knowingly leaving Isaiah in a dangerous situation and consuming synthetic cannabis, rendering her incapable of ensuring his safety. The Court noted that Parangi's actions were more culpable compared to other cases cited by the defence, where the defendants had mitigating circumstances such as mental illness or unexpected situations. The Court held that Parangi’s decision to use drugs, knowing it would incapacitate her, should have been secondary to ensuring Isaiah’s safety. Therefore, the starting point and the resultant sentence were not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the sentence imposed by the High Court. The Court emphasised the importance of prioritising a child's safety over personal desires or needs, particularly in circumstances where the child's life was at risk.

Orders