[1] Mr Longshaw, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand. You appear for sentencing having entered a guilty plea to a charge of neglecting a vulnerable adult, Anna Riddell, known by her family as Polly.

[2] I acknowledge the presence, both in Court and remotely, of Ms Riddell’s family and friends, and the Court is very conscious that today marks the fifth anniversary of her death.

[3] Sentencing is always a difficult exercise, and particularly so when someone has died and the admitted criminal conduct is an omission, one involving gross negligence rather than an intentional or reckless act.

R v LONGSHAW [2023] NZHC 2902 [16 October 2023]

The offending

[4] It is first appropriate that I record the facts of your offending, and I take these from the summary of facts that has been agreed between the Crown solicitor and the defence.

[5] You and Ms Riddell were in what is described as an off and on again relationship up to the time of her death on 16 October 2018. She had been living in Central Otago until about 13 October 2018, when she arrived at your home in Brighton, here in Dunedin.

[6]You were both at your address on the evening of 15 October 2018. Just after

9.30 pm, Ms Riddell spoke to a relative on the phone for over 25 minutes. That relative told the Police that Ms Riddell’s mood was flat, which was out of character. That evening you observed Ms Riddell take her usual medication. When that was is not clear. Unbeknownst to you, at some point Ms Riddell also self-administered a quantity of non-prescription medication, including methadone, morphine and MDMA.

[7] You became suspicious that she had consumed non-prescription medication and asked her if she had taken drugs. She denied having done so. Again, exactly when that exchange took place was not clear. You nevertheless remained concerned she had taken drugs, and you took it upon yourself to take care of her. You told the Police that you monitored her condition from the first time you questioned her about drugs through until the following afternoon of 16 October 2018, a period of several hours.

[8] At around 5 pm that afternoon, your concern for Ms Riddell’s well-being had heightened. The summary of facts records that you mistakenly believed that she was suffering from pneumonia. You took steps to ensure her mouth was open and her airways clear. At 5.58 pm you called 111 and you said, “I think my partner is dead”. Emergency services arrived a short time later. Tragically, Ms Riddell was confirmed to have died.

[9] A post-mortem analysis confirmed the presence of diazepam, methadone, MDMA, methamphetamine,…

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 Longshaw

Details

AGLC: R v Longshaw [2023] NZHC 2902
Case: [2023] NZHC 2902
Decision Date: 16 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The King v Carl Frederick Longshaw (CRI-2021-012-1923 [2023] NZHC 2902) involved the sentencing of Longshaw for neglecting a vulnerable adult, Polly Riddell, resulting in her death. Longshaw, who was in an on-and-off relationship with Riddell, was at his residence when she arrived from Central Otago. On the evening of 15 October 2018, Longshaw observed Riddell taking her usual medication. Unaware that she had also self-administered a cocktail of non-prescription drugs, Longshaw suspected she had taken drugs, a suspicion she denied. His concerns led him to monitor her condition until he called emergency services at 5.58 pm on 16 October 2018, by which time Riddell was deceased.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors, and whether imprisonment or home detention was the more appropriate sentence. The court recognised the tragic consequences for Riddell’s family and the unique nature of the offence, which involved a failure to call for medical assistance rather than a deliberate act of harm. Longshaw's personal circumstances, including his age, poor mental health, and lack of a significant criminal history, were also considered.

The court found the appropriate starting point for sentencing to be 22 months’ imprisonment, reduced by 30 per cent due to Longshaw's guilty plea and previous good character, resulting in a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment. Given the sentence was less than two years, the court considered whether home detention would be more appropriate. The court determined that home detention was suitable, considering Longshaw’s low risk of re-offending and the rehabilitative needs better served in the community. Longshaw was sentenced to seven and a half months’ home detention, with conditions including prohibition of alcohol and drug use, participation in alcohol and drug programmes, and addressing offending-related factors. Additionally, an order was made for the destruction of drugs and other items seized from Longshaw’s address.

Orders