R v Paea - [2016] NZHC 822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2015-016-1112 [2016] NZHC 822

THE QUEEN

v

MYRA PAEA

Hearing: 28 April 2016

Appearances:

F E Cleary for Crown
D D Rishworth for Defendant

Sentenced:

28 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Napier (Elvidge & Partners) Rishworth Wall & Mathieson, Gisborne

R v PAEA [2016] NZHC 822 [28 April 2016]

[1] Myra Paea you are for sentence in this Court having pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter. Before I impose sentence on you this morning I am obliged to give you a warning in terms of the three strikes legislation. Given the conviction for manslaughter you are now subject to the three strikes law. You will also be given a written notice outlining the consequences. That notice will also list serious violent offences.

[2] If you are convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and if a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment. That is the warning I am obliged to give you. You can now be seated and I will tell you when you need to stand at the end of the sentence, thank you.

[3] As the Judge indicated at the sentence indication hearing the circumstances that bring you before the Court this morning are truly tragic. You were a young mother, 18 at the time, when you were left at home with your seven week old son, Milton in December 2014. Your partner had gone out for the day. Members of your family had been visiting for several hours, but ultimately you were left alone with Milton. On three separate occasions when he was crying and unsettled, you responded by picking him up and rocking him to a point that you were shaking him. You acknowledged eventually in your Police interview that you were angry with him because he would not keep quiet and that at one point you yelled at him to be quiet. You have said that you became stressed out and frustrated because Milton would not stop crying. You rocked him and shook him to stop him crying. You could not control yourself.

[4] Later that evening you noticed Milton was not swallowing. He pushed the bottle out with his tongue when you tried to feed him, and your partner also experienced difficulty with feeding him when he tried to give Milton a bottle in the middle of the night. At about 6 o’clock the next morning, your partner heard Milton

gurgling, and realised he was not breathing and attempted CPR. You got assistance from a neighbour to take Milton to hospital but he died later that morning.

[5]…

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 Paea

Details

AGLC: R v Paea [2016] NZHC 822
Case: [2016] NZHC 822
Decision Date: 28 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Myra Paea was sentenced for manslaughter following the death of her seven-week-old son, Milton. The case was heard and determined by Venning J on 28 April 2016. Paea had pleaded guilty to the charge, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. The court needed to consider both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances surrounding Paea’s actions.

The primary legal issue was the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, particularly in light of the tragic and heart-wrenching circumstances leading to Milton's death. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offence with Paea's personal circumstances, which included her young age, history of severe abuse, and significant psychological issues. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether a term of imprisonment or home detention would better serve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence.

The court acknowledged the tragic nature of the incident, where Paea, overwhelmed and frustrated by her son's incessant crying, shook him in an attempt to stop him from crying. The court noted that while this was a one-off incident, the consequences were devastating. The court also considered Paea's guilty plea and her young age at the time of the offence, which were mitigating factors. However, the gravity of the offence, particularly the taking of a young child's life, required a sentence that appropriately reflected society's denunciation of such conduct. The court concluded that imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act. Therefore, Paea was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment.

Myra Paea was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment for the manslaughter of her seven-week-old son, Milton. The court considered both the severity of the offence and the personal mitigating factors surrounding Paea's circumstances, ultimately determining that a term of imprisonment was necessary to appropriately reflect society's concern and denunciation of such conduct.

Orders