R v Kereopa - [2016] NZHC 1664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-091-1709 [2016] NZHC 1664

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL TE KOUAREHU KEREOPA

Hearing: 15 June 2016

Counsel:

S C Carter for Crown
B J Hesketh and R M Adams for Defendant

Judgment:

21 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Kereopa you appear for sentence today for the manslaughter of Gracie-May McSorley. Gracie was six months old and was left in your care for approximately 45 minutes on 6 July 2015. She died as a result of injuries she received during that brief time.

[2] You pleaded guilty to Gracie’s manslaughter after the charge was reduced by the Crown from murder on 15 June 2016. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment which reflects just how seriously the law views the killing of another person, even if death was not intended or foreseen.

[3] But the law also recognises that all manslaughter cases are not the same, and so the facts of each case play an important role in deciding the appropriate sentence.
That is why I need to begin by talking about what happened on 6 July 2015.

R v KEREOPA [2016] NZHC 1664 [21 July 2016]

The facts

[4] For about eight weeks before Gracie died you were in a relationship with her mother, Charlotte. In fact you moved in with Charlotte, who was living with her mother, sister and two infant daughters.

[5] Both Gracie and her older sister were much loved and well cared for children. On the afternoon in question Charlotte had to go out briefly to pick up Gracie’s sister. Before she left she put Gracie down for her afternoon sleep. Gracie was a little unsettled. Charlotte told you that Gracie was a bit grizzly but said not to pick her up and let her get to sleep.

[6] When Charlotte returned three quarters of an hour later she went into the bedroom. You were sitting on the side of the bed and Gracie was in her cot nearby, lying on her tummy. You told Charlotte that she had started breathing funny and had vomited. You showed her the vomit on a tea towel which you had held the baby over while she was being sick. You did not tell Charlotte at that time that Gracie’s body had been limp and her eyes had been rolling around in her head.

[7] Charlotte checked the baby. She was a bit pale and she did not seem to have a temperature, so her mother decided to let her sleep. Less than an hour later she checked Gracie again and noticed that her breathing was not normal. When she rolled Gracie over she noticed that she had puffy eyes and lips. Charlotte picked her up and took her into the kitchen where she was then able to see bruising inside and behind Gracie’s right ear. As she held her, Gracie started convulsing. When the little girl was put on a bed she was floppy and non-responsive…

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 Kereopa

Details

AGLC: R v Kereopa [2016] NZHC 1664
Case: [2016] NZHC 1664
Decision Date: 21 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine the appropriate sentence for Michael Te Kouarehu Kereopa, who had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of six-month-old Gracie-May McSorley. The court was tasked with considering the facts of the case, the impact on the victim's family, and the appropriate starting point for sentencing, taking into account the circumstances and aggravating factors of the offence. The court was also required to consider any mitigating factors, including the defendant's guilty plea and personal circumstances.

The court found that the manslaughter was the result of a single uncontrolled act of violence, and there were several aggravating factors present, including the extreme vulnerability and defencelessness of the victim, the severe and fatal blow to her head, the breach of trust involved, and the defendant's failure to call for medical help when the victim vomited after being hit, and later, his failure to tell the victim's mother what had happened, leading to further delays in treatment. The court also noted that there were no mitigating features of the offending. The court considered the maximum penalty for manslaughter to be life imprisonment, but noted that there was no New Zealand case where life imprisonment had been imposed for the manslaughter of a child. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was ten years imprisonment.

The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his guilty plea, his previous domestic violence convictions, and his love and care for his own children. The court also considered the defendant's potential undiagnosed ADHD as a child, although there was no medical evidence before the court about its impact on the events of the day in question. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate discount for the defendant's guilty plea and other personal factors was 20 per cent, resulting in an end sentence of eight years imprisonment.

The court sentenced Michael Te Kouarehu Kereopa to eight years imprisonment for the manslaughter of Gracie-May McSorley. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim's family, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court also noted that the sentence was in line with other cases involving the manslaughter of children.

Orders