R v Nagle - [2013] NZHC 2532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2013-043-206 [2013] NZHC 2532

THE QUEEN

v

CHERIE DENESE NAGLE

Counsel:
C E Clarke and N Elliott for Crown

K Pascoe for Appellant

Sentencing:

25 September 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF WILLIAMS J

[1] For a family to lose a baby is an unimaginable tragedy. For a mother to lose her baby in these circumstances must be doubly so.

[2] Cherie Nagle, I must sentence you for your role in the death of your son Reef

Rippa Stone on 4 August last year, aged just 10 days.

[3] You were charged with his manslaughter and you pleaded guilty to that charge. Your partner Selwyn Stone was initially charged alongside you, but that charge was withdrawn.

[4] Little Reef was born at home on the morning of Wednesday 25 July 2012. According to Dr Primhak, the consultant paediatrician, he was likely to have been around six weeks premature although you thought he was no more than nine days early. He was born at home without medical assistance of any kind. This was the way your family did things. Your much older children Serene (24), Jade (19),
River (16), and Jasmine (11) were all born at home in this way too.

R v NAGLE [2013] NZHC 2532 [25 September 2013]

[5] You were 47 years old when Reef was born – he was as they say, an autumn leaf – thoroughly unplanned, although Selwyn says they were all unplanned.

[6] You gave birth standing up in the bathroom with Selwyn, your partner of

25 years as the midwife. He tied off Reef ’s umbilical cord with dental floss after you got into a warm bath with this new baby. All seemed to go well. Once both you and Reef had had the bath, Selwyn cut the cord and you all cleaned up. You and your daughter Serene then weighed little Reef on the kitchen scales. You put him in a bowl apparently. He weighed in at princely 5½ pounds, at least according to the scales, although their accuracy may be questionable.

[7] Reef did not feed particularly well. You say he took a day to eventually figure out how to latch on but even then he fed intermittently and without any particular enthusiasm. Your son Jade had had the same problem, so you didn’t worry too much. But over time you and your mother must have developed some concerns about keeping Reef’s fluids up because on the Friday before Reef died, your mother, Vera, suggested you try feeding him boiled water through an eyedropper. This was a technique she said she used on you when you were newborn. Apparently you were six weeks premature as well. In any event, you bought the eyedropper on the Friday and then started to give Reef boiled water through it.

[8] His skin was wrinkled and a little cracked (even (I think) from birth). So you rubbed oil into his hands – first an orange oil but…

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 Nagle

Details

AGLC: R v Nagle [2013] NZHC 2532
Case: [2013] NZHC 2532
Decision Date: 25 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nagle involved Cherie Nagle who was charged with the manslaughter of her son, Reef Rippa Stone. The infant died at the age of 10 days. Nagle pleaded guilty to the charge. The case came before the High Court of New Zealand in New Plymouth where Justice Williams presided. The primary legal issue was whether Nagle should be convicted or discharged without conviction, considering the circumstances of her son's death and her actions as a mother.

Justice Williams carefully assessed the gravity of Nagle's actions and the direct and indirect consequences of her offending. He concluded that while the death of Reef was a grave matter, Nagle's culpability was at the lower end of the scale due to her lack of understanding of her son's critical condition and her otherwise loving and attentive nature as a mother. The judge considered testimonials from Nagle's children and community members, who attested to her dedication and care towards her family. The court also highlighted the significant personal and social consequences of a conviction, including the lasting stigma and impact on Nagle and her family. Justice Williams determined that a conviction would be disproportionate and decided to discharge Nagle without conviction, emphasizing the need for understanding, mercy, and forgiveness in such a tragic case.

Orders