R v Archer - [2019] NZHC 3146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-044-003288

[2019] NZHC 3146

THE QUEEN

v

AARON JAMES ARCHER

Hearing: 2 December 2019

Counsel:

B Dickey for Crown

R Mansfield and B Kirkpatrick for Defendant

Sentence:

2 December 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v ARCHER [2019] NZHC 3146 [2 December 2019]

[1] Mr Archer, you appear for sentencing having been found guilty of one charge of manslaughter. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. My sentencing will be in five parts. First, I will set out the facts of your offending. Second, I will describe your personal circumstances. Third, I will refer to a statement made by one of the victims of your offending. Fourth, I will set out my assessment of the sentence that should be imposed on you. Fifth, and finally, I will impose sentence.

Facts

[2] On 22 August 2018, Ariah Roberts, a two-year-old, was left in your care while her mother went to the shop. While Ariah was in your care, you either struck Ariah’s head or caused her head to be struck with such force that it caused a catastrophic brain injury. It appears Ariah fell immediately into unconsciousness. You tried to revive her without success. You called her mother. I have a recording of that call. You were clearly very distressed at what had occurred.

[3] On Ariah’s mother’s return to your home, assistance was sought from neighbours who also immediately tried to revive Ariah. Ambulance services were called, and they soon arrived on the scene. They too tried to revive Ariah. But it quickly became clear that Ariah was beyond help.

[4] Your explanation at the time of the incident and subsequently was that you had been swinging Ariah around, she slipped from your grip and she struck the wall. The jury clearly did not believe this. The jury must have found that you struck Ariah or caused her head to be struck, but that you did not intend to kill her and were not reckless as to whether death would follow.

[5] For completeness, while there was evidence that Ariah had multiple bruises to her head, I do not find that you caused any other injury to Ariah. On the contrary, I find that this was a single act of violence.

Personal circumstances

[6] I turn then to talk about your personal circumstances. I have the benefit of a PAC report, and a cultural report prepared by Ms Shelley Turner pursuant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act.

[7] Mr Archer, you are 31 years old. You identify as Pākehā. You had a very difficult and unstable upbringing. Your parents separated before you were born. Drugs and crime appear to have been features of your upbringing. Both your mother and your father suffered with drug addiction. Your father was imprisoned on at least two occasions during your youth for serious crime. On this, your father has…

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 R v Archer

Details

AGLC: R v Archer [2019] NZHC 3146
Case: [2019] NZHC 3146
Decision Date: 2 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron James Archer was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for the manslaughter of a two-year-old child, Ariah Roberts, who suffered a fatal brain injury while in his care. Archer was found guilty by a jury and was subject to sentencing proceedings. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the gravity of the offence, Archer's personal circumstances, the impact on the victim's family, and the principles of sentencing. The court had to assess the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case, including Archer's background, his conduct leading up to and during the offence, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court began by detailing the facts of the offence, noting that Archer had either struck the child or caused her head to be struck with catastrophic force. Despite Archer's claim that the injury resulted from the child slipping from his grip, the jury found otherwise. The court then considered Archer's personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing marked by exposure to drugs and violence, his history of drug use, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. Archer expressed remorse and a desire to rebuild his life, but the court found that he did not fully accept responsibility for the death, which impacted the discount for personal factors. The court also considered the victim impact statement, which highlighted the profound suffering of the child's family.

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering cases with similar facts and the need for denunciation and deterrence. Archer's sentence was then adjusted for personal factors, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and three months imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 50 per cent. The court emphasised the importance of accountability and the need to protect the community from similar offences.

Orders