R v L

Case [2020] NZHC 2911 5 November 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2020-085-001531

[2020] NZHC 2911

THE QUEEN

v

L

Hearing: 5 November 2020

Appearances:

S C Carter for the Crown

E Hall and R O’Hagan for the Defendant

Indication date:

5 November 2020

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] L you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter,1 five charges of male assaults female,2 and one charge of assault on a child.3 These guilty pleas follow on from a sentencing indication I earlier gave you.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177, maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Section 194(b), maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 194(a), maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

R v L [2020] NZHC 2911 [5 November 2020]

The offending

[2] The victim of the main offending was your baby daughter, A. A was born on 23 July 2018. She was just over three months’ old at the time of her death. A was raised in a home in Porirua with her mother, yourself, and her two-year-old sibling.

[3] On Monday 12 November 2018 you and A’s mother were at home with A. She was crying more than usual that day and you both took her to the hospital for examination. A doctor did a full body examination but found nothing abnormal was found and the suspected the cause of her discomfort was reflux.

[4] The following day A was in the care of yourself and A’s mother in the sleepout of the family home. In the afternoon A’s mother wanted to rest in the main part of the house, and you took over as primary caregiver. About an hour later A’s mother heard A crying and returned to the sleepout. You were holding A and appeared to be angry with her. She asked if everything was okay but you told her to go back inside the house. When she was leaving she heard A make a loud scream as if A was in pain. She ran back to the sleepout but you told her to go back into the house. Scared of confronting you, A’s mother returned to the house.

[5] It was around this time that you caused A to suffer a serious head injury, either by violent shaking, throwing, striking her or some combination of those things. The trauma was such that it would have resulted in immediate or near-immediate onset of symptoms. The infant suffered retinal haemorrhages to both eyes. Expert medical evidence indicates she would have stopped breathing immediately after the injury was inflicted and remained comatose until death.

[6] After inflicting the injury you left A in the sleepout and went to an associate’s house. You returned to the address shortly after…

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 L

Details

AGLC: R v L [2020] NZHC 2911
Case: [2020] NZHC 2911
Decision Date: 5 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

L pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter, five charges of male assaults female, and one charge of assault on a child. The victim was L's three-month-old daughter, A, who died from a serious head injury. L left A in a sleepout and went to an associate's house. The delay in seeking medical attention was an aggravating factor. The court considered the aggravating factors of vulnerability, breach of trust, and level of violence. The court decided that a starting point of nine years' imprisonment was appropriate. The court considered uplifts, discounts for personal factors, and a minimum period of imprisonment. The court decided on a discount of 55 per cent from the uplifted starting point, resulting in a sentence of four years and five months' imprisonment. The court did not impose any minimum period of imprisonment. The total sentence of imprisonment remained at four years and five months.

Orders