R v Milton - [2014] NZHC 778

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2013-025-001947 [2014] NZHC 778

THE QUEEN

v

SUCHARITTA MILTON

Hearing: (on the papers)

Appearances:

M-J Thomas for the Crown
T W Fournier for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

Background

[1] Prior to the hearing on 26 March 2014 to determine whether Mrs Milton was legally insane when she harmed her daughter,1 the Crown applied to amend the

charge of attempted murder to attempted infanticide.2

The timing of the application

was belated and unfortunate. Immediately before the hearing I conferred with counsel in chambers and indicated that I was not satisfied that an offence of
attempted infanticide existed and that this question required due consideration.

[2] Two psychiatrists were about to give evidence by audiovisual link concerning Mrs Milton’s mental capacity at the relevant time. Mrs Milton, and her family, were anxious for the hearing to be completed that morning. Mr Fournier indicated that his client preferred that the hearing proceed, rather than that there be a delay to enable
the amendment application to be argued and ruled upon.

1 R v Milton [2014] NZHC 605.
2 Pursuant to s 133(1) Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

R v MILTON [2014] NZHC 778 [15 April 2014]

[3] The hearing proceeded and in the course of my making a finding of insanity I referred to the amendment application and noted that it was reserved for further consideration. Accordingly, this judgment deals with the reserved application.

An apparent problem

[4] Section 178 of the Crimes Act 1961 relevantly defines infanticide in this way:

(1) Where a woman causes the death of any child of hers under the age of 10 years in a manner that amounts to culpable homicide, and where at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed, by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child, or by reason of the effect of lactation, or by reason of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should not be held fully responsible, she is guilty of infanticide, and not of murder or manslaughter, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.

(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder or manslaughter of any child of hers under the age of 10 years there is evidence that would support a verdict of infanticide, the jury may return such a verdict instead of a verdict of murder or manslaughter, and the defendant shall be liable accordingly. Subsection (2) of section 339 shall be read subject to the provisions of this subsection, but nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of the jury under that section to return a verdict of manslaughter.

(3) Where upon the trial of a woman for infanticide, or for the murder or manslaughter of any child of hers under the age of 10 years, the…

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 Milton

Details

AGLC: R v Milton [2014] NZHC 778
Case: [2014] NZHC 778
Decision Date: 15 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Milton arose before the High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, where the defendant, Sucharita Milton, was charged with attempted murder after she harmed her daughter. The Crown subsequently applied to amend the charge to attempted infanticide, a decision that the defendant opposed. The central legal issue was whether the crime of attempted infanticide existed under New Zealand law, specifically within the framework of the Crimes Act 1961. This issue necessitated an interpretation of Section 178 of the Act, which defines infanticide, and whether it implicitly allowed for an attempted version of the offence.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the statutory language and precedent, ultimately concluding that attempted infanticide could indeed be recognised as an offence. The reasoning hinged on the separation of substantive offences and attempts in the Crimes Act, as well as the applicability of the general law of attempts to the specific provisions of infanticide. The court found that while the Act does not expressly mention attempted infanticide, the structure of the Act and the intent behind the infanticide provisions support the existence of such an offence. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the infanticide laws to provide a mitigating factor when a mother's disturbed mental state due to childbirth or lactation affects her culpability.

Consequently, the court granted the Crown's application to amend the charge to attempted infanticide, reflecting the broader legislative intent to offer a lesser charge where appropriate. The court's judgment was that the amendment was consistent with the legislative objective and the general principles of criminal law regarding attempts. The final orders of the court were to amend the charge to attempted infanticide and to uphold the verdict of not guilty on account of insanity.

Orders