R v Loffley - [2013] NZHC 201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2011-004-022888 [2013] NZHC 201

THE QUEEN

v

JOEL SIMON RIHARI LOFFLEY

Hearing: 14 February 2013

Counsel: P K Hamlin & N R Webby for Crown
R P Chambers for Accused

Sentence: 14 February 2013

SENTENCE OF KEANE J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:

R P Chambers, Auckland

R V JOEL SIMON RIHARI LOFFLEY HC AK CRI 2011-004-022888 [14 February 2013]

[1] Joel Loffley, you appear for sentence following your trial for the murder on

14 November 2011 of JJ Ruhe-Lawrence, aged a little over two and a half years, the young son of your then partner Josephine Lawrence in whose Orakei state unit you were then living.

[2] On 14 November 2011 JJ died suddenly and shockingly, as a result of injuries to his liver and pancreas. They were split in two. The medical evidence was that those injuries, especially the splitting of the pancreas, were highly unusual even in young children. They could not have resulted from any usual accident. They called for quite extraordinary force.

[3] The medical evidence was also that those injuries were so severe that they made JJ’s death inevitable and that, within the short time he had to live, their effect on him would have been all too obvious. He would have been completely reduced and in excruciating pain.

[4] The Crown's case against you at your trial was that you caused JJ's death by some deliberately violent act, a punch, a kick or a stomp, involving extraordinary force. The Crown had no eye witness and you denied any such violence. The Crown relied on the cumulative effect of a wider body of evidence.

[5] The Crown's case was that you assaulted JJ in the half hour or so that he was in your care, after his mother, Ms Lawrence, left the house at 9am to arrange an overdraft advance on her benefit. That is why, the Crown contended, when she returned, she found you showering JJ and JJ crying and crouching and apparently sleepy in the shower; and that is why you then, highly unusually at that hour of the morning, put JJ back to bed.

[6] JJ's state when examined by ambulance officers later in the morning, when he was already dead, the Crown contended, was consistent on the medical evidence with JJ having suffered the fatal assault while he was in your care. The Crown relied as well on the pattern of injuries that JJ was found to have suffered in the five months that you and Ms Lawrence had been living together.

[7] In those five months JJ suffered two broken arms, one before he went to Tauranga to be cared for by Ms Lawrence's family there, and one after; and each time he was in your immediate care. He suffered also extensive bruises, up to the date of his death which, on the medical evidence were unusual in number and character and consistent with abuse. The Crown's…

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 Loffley

Details

AGLC: R v Loffley [2013] NZHC 201
Case: [2013] NZHC 201
Decision Date: 14 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joel Simon Rihari Loffley was convicted of murdering two and a half year old JJ Ruhe-Lawrence, the son of his partner Josephine Lawrence. The case involved a dispute over the cause of JJ's fatal injuries, with the Crown contending that Loffley inflicted the injuries through deliberate violence, while Loffley claimed that the injuries occurred accidentally. The court examined the medical evidence, which indicated that the injuries were severe and required extraordinary force, and were inconsistent with accidental causes. The court also considered the history of injuries suffered by JJ while in Loffley's care, as well as evidence of Loffley's violent behavior towards others.

The legal issues in the case centered on the appropriate sentence for Loffley, given his conviction for murder. The court considered whether life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence, and if so, the minimum term that Loffley must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court also considered whether aggravating factors, such as the vulnerability of the victim and the brutality of the assault, warranted a higher minimum term. The court found that Loffley's assault on JJ was brutal and callous, and that he had a history of violent behavior towards others. The court also found that JJ was highly vulnerable due to his young age and complete dependence on Loffley.

The court ultimately sentenced Loffley to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 19 years before becoming eligible for parole. The court found that the aggravating factors in the case warranted a higher minimum term than the standard 17 years. The court also warned Loffley that any further offenses would result in a finite sentence without parole or early release, and that a subsequent murder conviction would result in life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust.

In summary, the court found Loffley guilty of murdering JJ Ruhe-Lawrence, and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years before becoming eligible for parole. The court considered the vulnerability of the victim, the brutality of the assault, and Loffley's history of violent behavior in reaching its decision. The court also warned Loffley of the consequences of any further offenses.

Orders