[2] Before I talk about the sentence I am required to tell you that, as you have pleaded guilty to and been convicted of murder, you are now subject to what is called the three strikes law.2 I am obliged to give you a warning of the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will also be given a written notice outlining these consequences, which lists the “serious violent offences”.

(a)If you are convicted of any serious violent offences, other than murder, in the future and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

(b)If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Introduction

[3] In sentencing you today I don’t just pluck a figure out of the air: I have to apply the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act), which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused through your offending, and to publicly acknowledge that harm; to denounce and deter your conduct; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.3 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark the seriousness of what you have done, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

[4] I will first set out your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and summarise counsel’s submissions. I then consider the appropriate sentence. Before I

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86B.
3      Section 7.

do so I want to reassure you that the sentence will not be more than I indicated to you at the sentence indication hearing on 3 September 2021.

[5] Firstly, because sentencing is required to be a public process, I have to talk about the detail of what happened, and I acknowledge that this will be distressing for you, but I need to do that.

The offending

[6] You have pleaded guilty to the murder of your daughter, Chevana Fox, who was 28 years old at the time of her death on 1 February 2021. She suffered from juvenile Huntington’s disease, diagnosed when she was 16 years…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence [2021] NZHC 2992
Case: [2021] NZHC 2992
Decision Date: 5 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cherylene May Lawrence was sentenced for the murder of her daughter, Chevana Fox, who suffered from juvenile Huntington's disease. The court considered the circumstances surrounding Chevana's care, the impact of her condition on Lawrence, and the events leading up to the murder. The court found that Chevana was particularly vulnerable due to her health condition, and that Lawrence was driven by a desire to end her daughter's suffering. The court determined that imposing a life sentence with a minimum period of imprisonment would be manifestly unjust, given the unique circumstances of the case. Instead, the court imposed a finite sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment, taking into account Lawrence's personal mitigating factors and the principles of sentencing.

The court acknowledged the immense burden Lawrence faced in caring for Chevana, as well as the systemic failures in the health system that contributed to her inability to adequately care for her daughter. The court also recognised the emotional distress and diminished wellbeing Lawrence experienced due to the circumstances of her offending. Based on the unique and complex circumstances of the case, the court found that imposing a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust, and instead imposed a finite sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment necessary.

Orders