Legal Research
Cases
R v Dickason

R v Dickason

Case [2024] NZHC 1704 26 June 2024

Criminal Liability

Mental Impairment

Mitigating Circumstances

Sentencing

Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2021-076-807

[2024] NZHC 1704

THE KING

v

LAUREN ANNE DICKASON

Hearing: 26 June 2024

Appearances:

A R McRae and S M H McManus for Crown K J Beaton KC and A M Toohey for Defendant

Judgment:

26 June 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

[1] Lauren Dickason, you are for sentence this morning having been found guilty by a jury of murdering your three young daughters — Liané, Maya and Karla.

The facts

The offending

[2] On 28 August 2021, you arrived in this country with your family from South Africa and following a two-week period of COVID quarantine at an Auckland hotel, you travelled to Timaru where your husband was taking up a surgical position at the local hospital. Temporary rental accommodation had been provided and you and your husband spent the following days attempting to settle into your new environment.

R v DICKASON [2024] NZHC 1704 [26 June 2024]

[3] On the evening of 16 September, your husband left home to attend a professional function. At some stage after he departed the house you went into the garage and retrieved a packet of cable ties. You gathered the children together in a bedroom and told them they were going to make necklaces. You attached the cable ties together and made ligatures which you placed around the children’s necks and tightened in an endeavour to strangle them. When that appeared insufficient to cause death you suffocated each of them by smothering them with a towel or blankets. The children’s bodies were placed in their beds by you, as if asleep. You then attempted to take your life by an overdose of medications but this proved ineffective.

[4] When your husband came home, he found you at the kitchen bench in a disoriented state before making the appalling discovery of his children’s bodies. After emergency services were called, you were taken to hospital. You were discharged the following day, and interviewed by police that evening. You provided an account of what had occurred since arriving in New Zealand and described how you had taken your children’s lives. It is indisputable that you were suffering from a pre-existing recurrent major depressive disorder at this time.

Personal history

[5] Mrs Dickason, you are a 43-year-old woman who was born in South Africa. There is nothing remarkable about your upbringing. However, you suffered your first experience of depression when just 15 years old. It is a condition with which you have attempted to cope throughout your life. You graduated from medical school and became a general practitioner. After marrying in 2006, you and your husband experienced difficulty conceiving and this resulted in a prolonged period of fertility treatment. You self-prescribed antidepressant medication in late 2008, and experienced a miscarriage in January 2013. Liané was born in September 2014. In October the following year, you sought psychiatric assistance for postpartum depression, although by November 2015 this…

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 Dickason

Details

AGLC: R v Dickason [2024] NZHC 1704
Case: [2024] NZHC 1704
Decision Date: 26 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lauren Anne Dickason was convicted of murdering her three daughters, Liané, Maya, and Karla. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the severe mental health issues Dickason was experiencing at the time of the murders. The legal issues involved assessing whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust given Dickason's mental state, and whether a finite sentence would be more appropriate. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the offender's mental health, and the principles of sentencing. Ultimately, the court concluded that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust due to the significant impact of Dickason's major depressive disorder on her actions. Instead, she was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment for each murder, to be served concurrently, and an order was made for her detention in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act.

The court found that Dickason's severe mental health issues significantly reduced her moral culpability, and that a life sentence would not adequately reflect the circumstances of the case. The court considered the statutory presumption of a longer minimum period of imprisonment for certain aggravating circumstances but recognised that the principle of proportionality in sentencing required a nuanced approach. The court concluded that the imposition of a life sentence would be manifestly unjust given the unique circumstances of the case, where the offender's psychiatric condition was a direct cause of the offending. Instead, a determinate sentence of 18 years' imprisonment was deemed appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the offender's personal circumstances. The court also ordered that Dickason be detained in a hospital as a special patient due to her ongoing mental health needs and high risk of suicide.

Orders