Legal Research
Cases
R v Ngawhika

R v Ngawhika

Case [2023] NZHC 520 15 March 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-063-2590

[2023] NZHC 520

THE KING

v

MELODY MAMAENGAROA NGAWHIKA

Date of hearing: 15 March 2023

Appearances:

A J Gordon for the Crown S I Mills for Ms Ngawhika

Date of sentence:

15 March 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua

R v NGAWHIKA [2023] NZHC 520 [15 March 2023]

[1] Ms Ngawhika, as you know, on 29 November last year, a jury found you guilty of the manslaughter of your infant son, Elijah Abraham. You were convicted accordingly. I now am to sentence you on your conviction.

[2] In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your established guilt.1 Because I was the trial judge, for sentencing, I also am entitled to make factual findings based on the evidence at trial, if consistent with the jury’s verdicts, whether or not adverse to your interests. I am not bound to accept a version of facts most favourable to you.2

[3] I have read and listened to all that counsel have had to say, both for you and for the Crown. The Crown recommends a starting point of five years’ imprisonment, discounted only in duration. Your counsel advocates for a starting point of four years’ imprisonment. He additionally claims discounts in a range of 65–70 per cent leading to an end sentence of home detention.

[4] The lawyers’ written submissions are detailed and lengthy. I have given them careful consideration. But I don’t recite them, because sentencing is an intense exercise of my own judgement. I am not bound by the lawyers’ views; I have to come to my own decision. To meet sentencing’s multiple purposes,3 I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity (or seriousness) of your offending, including your culpability (or responsibility) for it.

Your offending

[5] I need first to cover off the background to your offending, to let people know the conduct for which I am sentencing you.

[6] At some time in the night of 28 August 2021 into the following morning, you were trying to settle the teething and crying six-month-old Elijah. You were holding him against your body as you walked around inside your house, his face into your

1      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).
2      Section 24(1)(a); and Edwardson v R [2017] NZCA 618 at [105]–[107], citing R v Connelly [2008] NZCA 550 at [14] and B (CA58/2016) v R [2016] NZCA 432 at [76].
3      Sentencing Act, s 7: accountability, responsibility, victims’ interests, reparation, denunciation, deterrence, community protection, rehabilitation and reintegration.

shoulder. The jury’s verdict means it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt you intentionally suffocated him. The verdict also means the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt you intended to cause Elijah significant bodily injury, or knew your actions were likely to cause his death or consciously ran the risk Elijah could die as a result of your actions. The…

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 Ngawhika

Details

AGLC: R v Ngawhika [2023] NZHC 520
Case: [2023] NZHC 520
Decision Date: 15 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melody Mamaengaroa Ngawhika was convicted of the manslaughter of her six-month-old son, Elijah Abraham Ngawhika, following a jury trial. Ngawhika was sentenced by Jagose J on 15 March 2023. The central legal issues in the case revolved around determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, adjusting that starting point for both aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately deciding on an end sentence that aligns with the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the impact on the victims against the defendant's personal circumstances, including her mental health issues and background.

The court first set a starting point of three years and six months' imprisonment, considering the unique circumstances of the case where the manslaughter was an isolated event rather than a pattern of abuse, but still deliberate. Mitigating factors included the defendant's severe mental illness at the time of the offence and her otherwise non-violent background, leading to a total discount of 45%. This resulted in a reduced starting point of 24 months' imprisonment. Given the short-term nature of the sentence, the court opted for a less restrictive sentence of home detention, acknowledging the defendant's pre-sentence custody and her ongoing rehabilitation needs. The final sentence imposed was 12 months' home detention at He Korowai Trust in Northland’s Kaitaia, with the aim of allowing Ngawhika to continue her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders