[1] Mr Moran you need to stand. You appear for sentencing having been convicted at a retrial on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard to safety.1

Circumstances of offending

[2] The victim of this offending was a two year old toddler whose name is B . You met B ’s mother, Ms R , and B , during the latter half of 2010. The three of you moved into a home together in Palmerston North in February 2011 where you had enrolled as a student at Massey University. Within a few weeks you and Ms R decided to end your relationship, although you continued living in
the same house and sleeping in the same bed. Not long after this Ms R

1 Crimes Act, s 188(2). The jury was unable to reach a verdict at the first trial.

R v MORAN [2014] NZHC 966 [9 May 2014]

learned that she was pregnant to you and she was experiencing severe morning sickness as a result.

[3] The evidence at trial was that B was an adventurous and challenging toddler. B often got out of bed at night and took his clothes off, and he often urinated and defecated around the house. There were a number of incidents of B climbing onto furniture and onto and out of windows. On one occasion, B climbed out of his bedroom window at night to get a closer look at a digger that was working on the street. He was found by his mother on the street outside the house. In the early hours of 14 May 2011 B climbed on to the lounge window sill, opened the window and fell, hitting his head on a concrete path. He was taken to hospital for observation and ultimately discharged on 15 May 2011 after being assessed as in good health.

[4] Ms R was having difficulty in managing B ’s behaviour and providing sufficient supervision of him. Shortly before the present incident she had met with a child psychologist and had booked a second appointment. She and you had begun making entries in a book, called B ’s book, to record B ’s behaviour issues. You had also put in place a “naughty square” in the kitchen as a place where B was to be put to help him to understand that some of his behaviours were not okay.

[5] On the evening of 17 May 2011 B was put to bed. Ms R went to bed herself at about 9.30 pm. You were watching television and working on university assignments that were due. At some stage it seems that B had gotten up out of bed. You told the police that B…

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 Moran

Details

AGLC: R v Moran [2014] NZHC 966
Case: [2014] NZHC 966
Decision Date: 9 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Moran, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved the sentencing of Peter Ross Moran, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard to safety. The victim, a two-year-old toddler named B, suffered severe and permanent injuries, including brain damage, epilepsy, intellectual disability, and mobility issues. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Moran, considering the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and Moran's personal circumstances.

The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account the maximum penalty for the offence and the specific circumstances of the case. The court considered whether the maximum starting point was warranted given the breach of trust and the momentary loss of control by Moran. Additionally, the court had to assess mitigating factors such as Moran's youth, lack of prior convictions, and the disruption caused by his lengthy period on bail.

The court decided on a starting point of four years imprisonment, reduced from the maximum due to the momentary loss of control and the challenging circumstances Moran faced. After applying discounts for the mitigating factors, the final sentence was set at three years and six months imprisonment, with no minimum period required. The court concluded that the sentence adequately denounced the offence and held Moran accountable, while also considering his prospects for rehabilitation and future contribution to society.

The final orders of the court were that Peter Ross Moran be sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment, with a first strike warning issued at the time of conviction.

Orders