ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT AND VICTIMS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 200 AND 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2020-092-4600
[2021] NZHC 973
THE QUEEN
v
JD
Hearing:
4 May 2021
Counsel:
J J Rhodes for Crown
M J Dyhrberg QC, D-M Cross and H B Hellyer for defendant
Sentence:
4 May 2021
SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau Marie Dyhrberg QC, Auckland
R v D [2021] NZHC 973 [4 May 2021]
[1] JD, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your three-month-old daughter, T, on 13 April 2020 at your home in Papatoetoe.1 The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. In sentencing you, I accept as proved the essential facts that are set out in the agreed summary to which you pleaded.2
[2] Before I begin, I acknowledge T’s mother, Ms K, and the members of her family and of your family. You are all greatly affected by the tragedy that has brought you here, and I extend the Court’s deepest sympathy to them all. I acknowledge also the short life of T, whose entry into your families was welcomed with love and affection, I have no doubt, and whose promise will never be realised.
Background
[3] Distressing though it may be for Ms K and you, who loved that little girl, I need to explain the circumstances of your offending, so that people will understand the basis on which I am sentencing you.
[4]On 13 April 2020, Ms K, T, T’s older sister – your other daughter V, aged two
– and you were at your home due to the nationwide Level 4 lockdown that was part of the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response. Like almost everyone in the country at that time, your family and you had been in that locked down confinement for just under three weeks. I accept that, for many young parents of small children, that period had its challenges. You would have been subjected to unusual pressures with which you may not have been fully equipped to cope as well as older and more experienced parents. But as a parent you were responsible nevertheless for the well-being of two of the most vulnerable members of our society. T was completely dependent on you for her survival.
[5] At approximately 6.00 pm, that day, Ms K handed you a bottle from which to feed T while she went to give V a shower. Although it does not appear in the summary of facts, it is now said by Ms Dyhrberg QC (and I believe you referred to this in talking
1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a) and 177. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1).
to Dr Wyness, the psychiatrist) that T had been unsettled earlier that day and that you had taken her…
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 JD
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v JD [2021] NZHC 973
Case
[2021] NZHC 973
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involves JD, who has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his three-month-old daughter, T, on 13 April 2020 at his home in Papatoetoe. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for JD, considering the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victims, and JD's personal circumstances.
JD's actions leading to the death of his daughter were driven by anger and frustration due to the baby's crying, exacerbated by his use of methamphetamine and a fractured relationship with the child's mother. The court acknowledged the significant impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on JD's ability to cope with the pressures of childcare. The victim impact statements highlighted the profound grief experienced by the family, particularly the baby's mother and older sister, who will grow up without her younger sibling.
The court considered the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding JD accountable for his actions, denouncing the conduct, and protecting the community. The starting point for sentencing was set at 10 years' imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. Various mitigating factors, such as JD's youth, his remorse, and his guilty plea, led to a combined discount of 35%. This resulted in a final sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment to be served before parole eligibility.
The court's final orders reflect the sentence imposed on JD for the manslaughter of his daughter, acknowledging the profound loss experienced by the family and the need for JD to take responsibility for his actions through his sentence and potential rehabilitation.