R v Lingman - [2020] NZHC 3312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2019-070-002783

[2020] NZHC 3312

THE QUEEN

v

SHEVRON OLIVER ALFRED LINGMAN

Hearing: 15 December 20202

Appearances:

Richard Jenson for the Crown David Bates for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 December 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J

R v LINGMAN [2020] NZHC 3312 [15 December 2020]

Introduction

[1] Shevron Oliver Alfred Lingman, at the age of 27 you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to three charges:

(a)ill-treatment/neglect of a child (representative) (x 2);1 and

(b)causing grievous bodily harm (“GBH”) with intent to cause GBH.2

The offending

[2] The facts will be well-known to you but because the law requires the sentencing process to be undertaken in open Court and in public, I must record them because they necessarily inform how the sentence I shall impose is formulated. The facts I shall recite are drawn from the summary of facts which you accept.

[3] The background is that you lived with your partner, Ms F, and your two children, S, who is now aged three-and-a-half and M, who is now aged two. The offending relates to the abuse of these children.

(i)First ill-treatment/neglect (of S) between 12 August 2017 and 30 December 2018

[4] During her first 16 months of life, S suffered a number of injuries which occurred whilst you had either sole care or joint care of her. You did not seek medical attention in relation to the injuries. These were:

(a)bruising to her left eye and cheek, observed by the midwife when S was just three weeks old. You and Ms F were advised to take her to the doctor but you failed to do so and S was then taken into the care of Oranga Tamariki;

(b)a torn frenulum, discovered when she was examined by doctors after she was put in Oranga Tamariki’s care;

1 Section 195. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.

(c)a black eye noticed by a neighbour. When the neighbour asked Ms F about it, she claimed that S had fallen off the bed and hit her face on a chest of drawers;

(d)a collection of small bruises on her thigh, noticed by her day care teacher on 4 May 2018;

(e)a burn or sore on her thigh, noticed by her day care teacher on 11 May 2018;

(f)a bruise on her leg, noticed by her day care teacher in November 2018;

(g)bruising on her leg, noticed by your half-sister in November 2018. When she asked Ms F about it, she said that you had smacked S because she had spread flour through the kitchen;

(h)a bruise or mark around her eye, noticed by her day care teacher on 30 November 2018; and

(i)a bruise noticed by Ms F after she returned home following M’s birth. You told her it was caused by S falling down the stairs. No medical attention was sought. When M was admitted…

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 Lingman

Details

AGLC: R v Lingman [2020] NZHC 3312
Case: [2020] NZHC 3312
Decision Date: 15 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shevron Oliver Alfred Lingman was sentenced for his guilty pleas to three charges: two counts of ill-treatment/neglect of a child and one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court heard that Lingman had abused his two young children over a period of time, causing significant injuries to them. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting points for each charge, the effect of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the totality of the offending. The Crown argued for a starting point of six to seven years for the grievous bodily harm charge, and four to five years for the neglect charges, to be served concurrently with a one to two year uplift on the lead charge. The defence argued for a starting point of seven years for the grievous bodily harm charge, and five years for the neglect charges, to be served concurrently with discounts for cultural factors and the late guilty plea. The court found that the grievous bodily harm charge fell within band two of the R v Taueki starting points, and set a starting point of seven years. The court then uplifted this by two years for the neglect charges, resulting in an overall starting point of nine years. The court granted a 15% discount for mitigating factors and a 10% discount for the late guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently. The court also gave Lingman a first strike warning under the three strikes law.

Orders