R v Cooper - [2017] NZHC 2498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-010951 [2017] NZHC 2498

THE QUEEN

v

KATHLEEN ELIZABETH COOPER

Hearing: 12 October 2017

Counsel:

A J F Perkins QC and M K Regan for Crown
P E Dacre QC and D S Wallwork for Defendant

Judgment:

12 October 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitor: M K Regan, Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Crown Solicitor, Manukau

Counsel: A Perkins QC, Barrister, Auckland
P Dacre QC, Barrister, Auckland
D S Wallwork, Barrister, Manukau

R v COOPER [2017] NZHC 2498 [12 October 2017]

[1] Mrs Cooper, on 15 August 2017 you were found guilty, following a jury trial, of the murder of your grandson, Jermaine Ngawhau. You appear before me today for sentence.

[2] You defended the charge on the basis that you were guilty of manslaughter, not murder. The jury rejected that claim.

[3] Given your conviction for murder, your counsel, Mr Dacre QC, responsibly concedes that a sentence of life imprisonment is inevitable.1 The real issue before me today is what minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before you are eligible to be considered for parole. Mr Perkins QC, for the Crown, submits that the appropriate minimum term is one of 17 years’ imprisonment. Mr Dacre argues that I can, and should, impose a lesser minimum period of imprisonment.2

[4] I would like to acknowledge at the outset everyone who is here in Court today. I know that some of you have flown here from afar. I would also like to acknowledge those who are not able to be here today but who knew and cared for Jermaine in his short life. The unnecessary death of a child is always a great tragedy. Obviously, no sentence I pass can bring Jermaine back or heal the pain and loss of those who loved him. Rather, the aim of sentencing today is to hold you, Mrs Cooper, accountable for the terrible harm you have caused – to Jermaine, who lost his life; to the family who loved him and will never see him grow up; to his young sister, who you wrongly blamed for his death; and to the community generally. The loss of yet another young life at the hands of the very person entrusted to care for him is rightly a matter of public outrage and deep community concern.

[5] I have had the benefit of reading victim impact statements from both of Jermaine’s parents. There can be no greater loss than the loss of a child and I acknowledge their grief and pain. I thank them for taking the time to share with me the impact that the loss of Jermaine has had on them. To Jermaine’s mother, the
depth of your pain is apparent from your statement. You have suffered a double

1 Section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 creates a presumption in favour of life imprisonment for murder.
2 As per s 104 of the Sentencing Act…

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 Cooper

Details

AGLC: R v Cooper [2017] NZHC 2498
Case: [2017] NZHC 2498
Decision Date: 12 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Kathleen Elizabeth Cooper was convicted of the murder of her grandson, Jermaine Ngawhau. The defendant, Mrs Cooper, was sentenced for her crime before the High Court of New Zealand. The central legal issue was determining the minimum period of imprisonment Mrs Cooper must serve before she is eligible for parole. The Crown argued for a minimum term of 17 years, while the defence contended for a lesser term.

The court acknowledged the extreme vulnerability of the victim, Jermaine, due to his young age and health issues. It also considered the serious breach of trust by Mrs Cooper, who was entrusted with Jermaine's care. The court balanced these aggravating factors against mitigating factors such as the defendant's advanced age, the impulsive nature of the crime, and the significant stress she faced in caring for four young children with minimal support. Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasised that no level of stress could justify such a violent act against a defenceless child. After considering all the circumstances, the court decided on a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years and six months. This decision reflects the gravity of the crime while also taking into account the unique circumstances of the case.

Orders