R v MS - [2017] NZHC 2066

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO S 200
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT OR WITNESS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-070-2233 [2017] NZHC 2066

THE QUEEN

v

MS

Hearing: 18 August 2017

Appearances:

A J Pollett and SJP Davison for Crown
R J Stevens and K Hadaway for Defendant

Sentence:

18 August 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Hollister-Jones Lellman, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Public Defence Service, Tauranga

R v MS [2017] NZHC 2066 [18 August 2017]

[1] MS, today I am sentencing you for the murder of Baby R.

[2] You defended the charge on the basis that you were guilty of manslaughter, not murder. The jury who heard the case rejected that explanation and found you guilty, in fairly short order it has to be said, of murder at the end of the trial on 3 July 2017. I gave you a first strike warning when you were convicted.

[3] The lawyers and I agree that that the only sentence that can appropriately be passed on you today is a sentence of life imprisonment and I impose that sentence on you now.1

[4] The real issue today is the minimum term of imprisonment that you should serve before the parole process can begin. Counsel are agreed on several matters relating to that issue but there are some differences between them that I shall need to address.

[5] I shall start by setting out the events that led to Baby R’s death. And before I do that I wish to assure Baby R’s family, in fact I want to assure everyone in the courtroom, and you, that the lawyers on each side as well as Corrections have done the work required of them to prepare for today.

[6] Corrections have given me a report on you, MS; Crown and defence counsel have given me very good written submissions; and, of course, I have today had the benefit of hearing the victim impact statements from you Ms W – Baby R’s mother – and his grandmother and father.

[7] I have to take all of this information into account to get to a result that does justice to the community, to Baby R, to his family and to you MS. Baby R was a lovely little baby boy when he died and it is a tragedy for his family, and for you, that
he did.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172.

Facts

[8] You came to New Zealand from India in November 2014 and, by October

2015, you were working on local orchards in the Bay of Plenty and had moved into to a house in Tauranga. That house was occupied by Ms P, her husband, Mr S, and their little children. Ms W moved…

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 MS

Details

AGLC: R v MS [2017] NZHC 2066
Case: [2017] NZHC 2066
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, MS, was convicted of the murder of Baby R, a four-month-old child. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry, and the defendant was sentenced on 18 August 2017. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate sentence for the defendant and the minimum term of imprisonment that should be served before the parole process could begin. The court determined that the only appropriate sentence was life imprisonment and proceeded to determine the minimum term.

The court considered various factors in determining the minimum term, including the vulnerability of the victim, the level of brutality involved in the offence, and the defendant's youth and circumstances. The court acknowledged that Baby R was particularly vulnerable due to his age and that the level of violence used was extreme. However, the court also took into account the defendant's youth and the fact that she was far from home and would serve her sentence away from family and friends. The court decided to reduce the minimum term by two years due to the defendant's youth and by six months due to the hardship of serving the sentence far from home.

The court decided against making any further reductions and set the minimum term of imprisonment at 14 years and six months. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with this minimum term.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years and six months. The court also prohibited the publication of the defendant's name, address, occupation, or identifying particulars pending further order of the court.

Orders