R v Neil - [2017] NZHC 1494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-087-738 [2017] NZHC 1494

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE CHRISTOPHER NEIL LACEY-MARIE TE WHETU DONNA CATHERINE PARANGI

Hearing:
30 June 2017

(Heard at ROTORUA)

Appearances:

H Sheridan for Crown
R Laybourn for Mr Neil
W Lawson and B Hollier for Ms Te Whetu
S Gray for Ms Parangi

Judgment:

30 June 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v NEIL,TE WHETU & PARANGI [2017] NZHC 1494 [30 June 2017]

[1] Ms Te Whetu and Mr Neil, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. Ms Parangi you also appear for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on that same charge. As I am sure you are all aware, that offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

[2] I propose first to set out the background to the charge in a general way. I will then return to consider the factual background in more detail when I determine the starting points to be applied in respect of each defendant.

Background

[3] The victim in this case was an eight month old baby boy called Isaiah. Isaiah was the son of Mr Neil and Ms Te Whetu. Ms Parangi is Ms Te Whetu’s mother. Isaiah was her grandson.

[4] As at 2 November 2015 Isaiah, Ms Te Whetu and Mr Neil were all living with Ms Parangi and her husband in their family home at Ruatoki. They had moved there in or about June 2015. During the evidence at trial, I heard that Mr Neil came and went from the address, but he was certainly living there as at 2 November 2015.

[5] 2 November 2015 was a Monday. Ms Parangi was not working on that day. At about 9.30 am, Ms Te Whetu’s two older children having gone to Kohanga Reo, Ms Parangi and Ms Te Whetu drove to Kawarau. There they purchased a quantity of synthetic cannabis. They then purchased something to eat and returned to Ruatoki. Isaiah had accompanied them on the journey. It appears that throughout the journey he was strapped in a car seat in the rear of the vehicle.

[6] When the vehicle returned to the home at Ruatoki, it was parked in the back yard of the address behind the house. It was parked in an area where there was no shade. The evidence disclosed, and the summary of facts in respect of Ms Te Whetu and Mr Neil records, that the vehicle returned home at about 12.30 pm. At that point Isaiah was asleep in his car seat in the rear of the vehicle.

[7] Ms Te Whetu and Ms Parangi then agreed that they would leave Isaiah asleep in the vehicle in his car seat. They went into the house. It is common ground that

they both then consumed some of the synthetic cannabis they had purchased in

Kawerau.

[8] Isaiah was left in the vehicle until 3.30 pm. There is nothing in either the summary…

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 Neil

Details

AGLC: R v Neil [2017] NZHC 1494
Case: [2017] NZHC 1494
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Te Whetu, Ms Parangi, and Mr Neil were sentenced by the High Court of New Zealand for the manslaughter of Ms Te Whetu and Mr Neil's eight-month-old son, Isaiah, who died from hyperthermia after being left in a car for three hours. The court had to determine the appropriate starting points for sentencing and whether any mitigating or aggravating factors should be considered. The starting points were determined based on the level of culpability of each defendant, taking into account their knowledge, actions, and decisions that led to Isaiah's death. Ms Parangi received a starting point of four years imprisonment, Ms Te Whetu received a starting point of four years two months imprisonment, and Mr Neil received a starting point of two years nine months imprisonment. The court also considered mitigating factors such as the defendants' remorse, their criminal history, and their mental health. Ultimately, Ms Parangi and Ms Te Whetu were each sentenced to three years imprisonment, while Mr Neil was sentenced to one year and 11 months imprisonment, with the possibility of home detention pending the outcome of further enquiries. The court considered the sentences sufficient to satisfy the sentencing principles set out in s 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Orders