R v Ngahere - [2020] NZHC 2133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2019-029-256

[2020] NZHC 2133

THE QUEEN

v

JAHCEY NGAHERE

Hearing: 21 August 2020

Appearances:

B O’Connor for the Crown

A B Fairley and M R Ridgley for Mr Ngahere

Judgment:

21 August 2020

SENTENCING NOTES OF POWELL J

[Redacted version]

R v NGAHERE [2020] NZHC 2133 [21 August 2020]

[1] Jahcey Ngahere, you appear for sentence today after pleading guilty to one charge of manslaughter, one charge of assaulting a child, and one charge of threatening to kill.

The offending

[2] The offending occurred in early 2019. At that time you were living with your partner Kirishia, her one-year-old son, your stepson, and your and Kirishia’s daughter Maree, born as we have heard, on 23 January 2019. From the available evidence I have before me it appears that you were happy if a bit isolated, and not at that time suffering any significant problems with your mental health.

[3] The first of the offences for which you are sentenced today was the assault on a child. This occurred when, in January 2019, you were at home with [your stepson], who was described as wanting to be entertained or played with. You became annoyed with him, grabbed him by his arm, lifted him up off the ground to about your waist line, and then forcefully dumped him to the ground. You then told him, “now you fucken sit there”. The force you used on [your stepson] was enough to make him start crying, but fortunately he did not suffer any physical injury from this incident.

[4] On the evening of 18/19 February 2019, you were home alone with [your stepson] and Maree, who by then was four weeks old. At some point something happened, and there is no doubt that you seriously injured Maree, resulting in her death. Just after 7 am that morning you called emergency services to report that Maree was no longer breathing. You said that you had found her lying unresponsive, on her back in the cot. You were advised to commence CPR. Your attempts to revive Maree and subsequent attempts by emergency staff were unsuccessful, and Maree was pronounced dead at the scene.

[5] Initially Maree’s death was not seen as suspicious. However, bruising on her body prompted a post mortem examination which revealed a range of serious injuries including further bruising to Maree scalp and a large brain bleed. Those injuries that were recorded were clearly the result of trauma that could not have happened accidentally, and were the cause of Maree’s death.

[6] When first interviewed by Police you initially suggested that when Maree would not settle and go to sleep, you threw a heavy pillow at her while she was in her pram: this caused the pram to move and a vase to fall into the pram, although you did not suggest you found a vase in the pram. You have since stated that you were…

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 Ngahere

Details

AGLC: R v Ngahere [2020] NZHC 2133
Case: [2020] NZHC 2133
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jahcey Ngahere appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count of assaulting a child, and one count of threatening to kill. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the offending, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing, the starting point for the charges, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending, as well as the offender's personal circumstances, to arrive at a sentence of four years and five months' imprisonment for manslaughter, three months' imprisonment for assaulting a child, and six months' imprisonment for threatening to kill, to be served concurrently. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment beyond the one-third period prescribed in the Parole Act, as it was not satisfied that it was necessary.

The court began by outlining the purposes of sentencing, which included denouncing the offending, holding the offender accountable for the harm done, and promoting a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of the harm. The court then calculated the starting point for the charges, taking into account the seriousness of the offending and the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that the aggravating factors, including the breach of the relationship of trust between the offender and the victim and the defenceless nature of the victim, outweighed any mitigating factors. The court then compared the offending to similar cases to determine an appropriate starting point.

The court considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his socio-economic deprivation, mental health issues, and youth, to determine any deductions that should be made to the starting point. The court found that the offender's personal circumstances gave rise to a total discrete discount of 15 per cent, bringing the end sentence to four years and five months' imprisonment. The court also considered whether a mandatory period of imprisonment was necessary but ultimately decided against it, finding that the need to denounce and deter was already met by the sentence imposed.

In conclusion, the court sentenced the offender to four years and five months' imprisonment for manslaughter, three months' imprisonment for assaulting a child, and six months' imprisonment for threatening to kill, to be served concurrently. The court did not impose a minimum period of imprisonment beyond the one-third period prescribed in the Parole Act. The court's decision was based on the purposes and principles of sentencing, the starting point for the charges, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders