R v Gray - [2019] NZHC 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-009-007857

[2019] NZHC 942

THE QUEEN

v

HAYDEN ANTHONY GRAY

Hearing: 20, 21, 22, 25, 27 March 2019

Appearances:

D L Elsmore and R E Harcourt for the Crown

E C Bulger for the defendant (at trial), J M Stringer for the defendant (at verdict)

Verdict:

1 May 2019

VERDICT OF OSBORNE J

[1] Mr Gray, you were charged with three offences. You elected trial by Judge alone, which took place before me over a five day period and at the conclusion of the Crown’s case one charge fell away.

[2] For reasons I have recorded in writing which will be given to you by Ms Stringer after this hearing, I have reached verdicts on each of the two remaining charges, which I will come to.

[3] First I will summarise the background and my reasons. To the extent there is any difference between this summary and my full reasons, the full reasons will prevail.

[4]You may be seated for the time being.

R v GRAY [2019] NZHC 942 [1 May 2019]

The charges

[5] Hayden Anthony Gray faced three charges in relation to his conduct towards his infant son, Carter Hutton. Carter was born on 24 June 2017. He suffered injuries in the first month of his life. He subsequently died, at home under palliative care, on 25 July 2018.

[6] Mr Gray initially faced a third charge, that on or about 14 July 2017 at Christchurch with intent to injure Carter Hutton he injured Carter Hutton. I dismiss that further charge under s 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for reasons set out in a Reasons Judgment which I hand down today.

[7]The remaining charges are: Charge 1
Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, under s 188(1) Crimes Act 1961, alleging that Mr Gray, between 24 June and 24 July 2017 at Christchurch, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Carter Hutton, caused him grievous bodily harm.

Charge 2

Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, also under s 188(1), alleging that Mr Gray on 24 July 2017 at Christchurch with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Carter Hutton, caused him grievous bodily harm.

[8]To prove each charge, the Crown must prove that on that occasion or period:

(a)the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Carter; and

(b)he did cause grievous bodily harm.

[9]“Grievous bodily harm” means really serious hurt or harm.

Carter’s birth and homecoming

[10]Carter’s parents were Mr Gray and Megan Hutton. He was their first child.

[11] Carter was a full-term baby. After his birth at Christchurch Hospital on 24 June 2017 he was discharged in healthy condition on 28 June 2017 to his parents’ care at their home in Christchurch.

[12] The couple settled into a routine of care and feeding. Ms Hutton took maternity leave from her job to be a full-time carer. Mr Gray continued in his employment which…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2019] NZHC 942
Case: [2019] NZHC 942
Decision Date: 1 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hayden Anthony Gray was charged with three offences relating to his treatment of his infant son, Carter Hutton. Following a trial by judge alone, one of the charges was dismissed, leaving two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under section 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court was required to determine whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Gray intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Carter and that he did, in fact, cause such harm. The court considered the medical evidence and Gray's explanations for Carter's injuries to determine the cause and intent behind the harm inflicted. The court found Gray guilty on both charges, concluding that the medical evidence and the pattern of injuries were consistent with intentional, inflicted harm rather than accidental injury.

The court's reasoning focused on the severity and nature of Carter's injuries, including extensive retinal haemorrhaging, brain swelling, and multiple skeletal fractures. The injuries were inconsistent with the explanations provided by Gray and more aligned with severe shaking or violent impact. The court was satisfied that Gray intended to cause grievous bodily harm, as the resulting harm was a near-certain outcome of his actions. The court dismissed alternative explanations, such as osteogenesis imperfecta, based on the medical evidence and the specific pattern of injuries. The court also noted the absence of any other individuals who could have caused the injuries during the time Carter was in Gray's care. Consequently, the court found Gray guilty on both charges and issued a warning under the Sentencing Act 2002, advising that any future serious violent offences would result in imprisonment without parole. Gray was remanded for sentencing.

Orders