R v O - [2012] NZHC 796

NOTE:ALL INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE PRISONER OR HER CHILDREN IS SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-009-004380 [2012] NZHC 796

REGINA

v

O

Hearing: 17 April 2012

Counsel: P A Currie for Crown
PHB Hall for Prisoner

Judgment: 17 April 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WHATA J

[1] Ms O you have pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted murder of your children. This is punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. But for the reasons I will give below I am not going to impose a sentence of imprisonment on you.

[2] Before I go further, all details of the sentence identifying you and your children are suppressed. I will give my reasons for this at the end of my sentence.

R V O HC CHCH CRI 2011-009-004380 [17 April 2012]

Facts

[3] I regret that I must retell the facts of your offending as I know this will add to the pain that you and your family have already endured. In our society, however, we place great value on ensuring that, as far as possible, justice is open to the public and that offending of this kind is dealt with in a transparent and accountable way.

[4] On the evening of 15 April 2011 and in the early hours of 16 April 2011, you took eight prescription tablets. You put your children, M aged seven and L aged five in the back of your car. The car was parked in an internal access garage and the garage door was closed. You put one end of the vacuum pipe on the vehicle’s exhaust, and placed towels around the pipe blocking off the exhaust with the effect that the exhaust fumes were channelled into the vacuum pipe. The other end of the vacuum hose was placed through a small gap in rear window of the car. A blanket was used to fill the remainder of the gap in the window.

[5] The back seats were folded down and blankets placed across the back to form a bed. M and L were placed in the back of the car and you then got in as well.

[6] On the Crown’s account you then phoned a friend saying that you were going to kill yourself and your children. On your account you say that you called your friend after you turned the car off.

[7] In any event, you turned the car on and left it running producing carbon monoxide gas from the exhaust pipe, into the vacuum pipe and hose into the rear of the car.

[8] Police later arrived at the house and found you in the lounge. M was found crying in the hall, and L was found unresponsive in the back of the car. Both were treated for exposure to carbon monoxide.

[9] It is not clear how long you and your children were left in the car with the car running. It appears that it was for a few moments…

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 O

Details

AGLC: R v O [2012] NZHC 796
Case: [2012] NZHC 796
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v O involved a sentencing hearing for Ms. O, who had pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted murder of her children. The High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, presided over the case. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the unique circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002. The legal issues included whether imprisonment was necessary to hold the offender accountable and to deter similar offences, given the offender's mental health issues and the nature of the offence.

The court, in its judgment, considered the offender's mental health issues, her remorse, and her commitment to her children and rehabilitation. The court acknowledged that while the attempted murder was premeditated, it was driven by the offender's intense suicidal emotions rather than malice or anger. The court found that a custodial sentence would not effectively address the root cause of the offending behaviour and would not adequately protect the community or the offender's children. Instead, the court focused on rehabilitating the offender and ensuring the safety of her children. The court imposed a sentence of 24 months of intensive supervision, with the condition that the offender must follow a mental health treatment plan. The court also issued a first strike warning under the three strikes law, cautioning the offender about the severe consequences of committing another serious violent offence.

The final orders included the suppression of all information identifying the prisoner or her children from all publication to protect the privacy and well-being of the children and to support the rehabilitation of the offender. The court directed the termination of the offender's electronic monitoring bail for completeness.

Orders