R v Lackner - [2015] NZHC 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-003149 [2015] NZHC 690

THE QUEEN

v

CHARLIE LACKNER

Charge:
Plea:

Murder

Guilty

Appearances:

R L Mann for Crown
C Bean for Prisoner

Sentenced:

14 April 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Copy to: C Bean, Hamilton

R v LACKNER [2015] NZHC 690 [14 April 2015]

[1] Charlie Lackner you are for sentence today having pleaded guilty to murder. Mr Bean has realistically accepted on your behalf the sentence of life imprisonment is inevitable. The only issue for the Court to determine today is the minimum period of imprisonment before you are eligible for parole. Before I address that issue it is necessary to refer to the background.

[2] On 15 June last year you were at home. You had the sole care of your children, including eight month old Cassius. Your partner was at work. When she returned home at about 11.30 that morning she saw you lying on the couch. Cassius was lying on you. He was unresponsive. When she asked you what had happened you said: ‘I slapped him I’m sorry’. The police were called. Cassius was taken to Waikato District Hospital where he was treated for a significant brain injury. He was subsequently transferred that evening to Starship Hospital for the specialised treatment that hospital can provide.

[3] Cassius was found to have significant swelling and bleeding on and around the brain, bruising to both sides of his forehead, and two detached retinas. The pathologist’s report reveals that the injuries associated with his death were multiple bruises to the side and front of his head caused by blunt force trauma. He also had internal head injuries. He had right, and to a lesser extent left, acute subdural haematoma, which is bleeding in the brain, with secondary complications. The damage and swelling to his brain as a result of the injuries you inflicted on Cassius caused brain damage that could not be reversed or treated. It caused his death. In addition Cassius had other injuries. You had inflicted fresh fractures to his ninth and tenth thoracic vertebrae and third lumbar vertebrae, although those would not have killed him.

[4] You have pleaded guilty to murder on the basis that you did not mean to kill Cassius. However, you meant to cause him bodily injury, known to you to be likely to cause death and you were reckless whether death ensued or not.

[5] The pre-sentence report confirms you are 33 years old. Your parents died when you were relatively young. You have been brought up by your whanau. You have had a number of laboring jobs throughout your life. You have worked hard and

regularly to provide for your family. Your partner and the mother of your children have moved away from Hamilton where this incident occurred. However, you still have the support of a number of your whanau and that is obvious to the Court. In addition your counsel has provided letters of…

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 Lackner

Details

AGLC: R v Lackner [2015] NZHC 690
Case: [2015] NZHC 690
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Lackner was heard, where Charlie Lackner was sentenced for the murder of his eight-month-old son, Cassius. Lackner had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, acknowledging that he did not intend to kill Cassius but meant to cause him bodily injury, knowing it was likely to cause death. The court was tasked with determining the minimum period of imprisonment before Lackner would be eligible for parole.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of Section 104 of the Sentencing Act, which mandates a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for murders involving particularly vulnerable victims. The court had to consider if imposing the 17-year minimum period would be manifestly unjust, taking into account mitigating factors such as Lackner's guilty plea, his expression of remorse, and his poor parenting skills and inability to control his temper.

The court reasoned that while the violent nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim warranted the minimum non-parole period, the mitigating factors should be considered. The court determined that a reduction of approximately 20% from the 17-year minimum, taking into account the guilty plea and remorse, would be appropriate. Consequently, the court sentenced Lackner to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 15 years, considering it would be manifestly unjust to impose the full 17 years.

Orders