[1] I would first like to acknowledge the presence of those here in Court today, whānau and other friends and recognise that this is no doubt a difficult day for everyone involved. And so I thank you for your participation.

[2] Now Ms Parangi, you obviously appear for sentence today, a jury being unanimous in finding you guilty of the charge of manslaughter.

[3] I note at the outset (as I have mentioned earlier today) that as many here will be aware, you have been sentenced previously on the charge of manslaughter, after an earlier trial in which the jury also found you guilty.1 Your conviction was, however, later quashed, and a retrial ordered. And in that context, and as I have flagged with counsel earlier today, I propose to sentence afresh; which means I will not simply be adopting the sentence of the previous Judge.2 I will sentence you in accordance with the facts as I found them at trial, insofar as they are consistent with the jury’s verdict.

[4] I will first set out the factual background to the charge in a general way. I fully appreciate that you and the lawyers, and others here today, will be familiar with these facts, but it is important the public know the basis upon which I am sentencing you today.

Background

[5] The victim in this case was an eight- month-old baby boy named Isaiah. Isaiah was your grandson (mokopuna).

[6] As at 2 November 2015, Isaiah, his parents, Lacey Te Whetu (your daughter) and her partner, Shane Neil, as well as their two older children, were all living with you and your long-term partner in your family home in Ruatoki.

[7] 2 November 2015 was a Monday. You were not working that day. It was the start of a holiday for you. At about 9.30 in the morning, the two older children had been picked up to go to Kohanga Reo. At that point, you and your daughter drove to Kawarau. You took Isaiah with you, and he was in a child car seat in the back of the

1 R v Parangi [2017] NZHC 1494.
2 R v Miers (1994) 11 CRNZ 307 (CA).

car. The purpose of your trip was to buy synthetic cannabis, which by that time was illegal. After purchasing the synthetics and something to eat, you and Ms Te Whetu, along with Isaiah, returned to Ruatoki. Your daughter was driving.

[8] When the vehicle returned to your home at Ruatoki at about 12.30pm, it was parked in the back yard of the address behind the house. It was…

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 Parangi

Details

AGLC: R v Parangi [2019] NZHC 996
Case: [2019] NZHC 996
Decision Date: 8 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donna Catherine Parangi appeared before the High Court of New Zealand to be sentenced for the manslaughter of her eight-month-old grandson, Isaiah, who died after being left in a car in hot conditions. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and various personal mitigating factors. The primary legal issues involved determining the starting point for the sentence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring consistency with sentences imposed on co-offenders. The court found that the appropriate starting point was three years and eight months’ imprisonment, reflecting the serious nature of the offending. Several mitigating factors were considered, including the offender's good character, mental health issues, and cultural background. The court granted a global discount of 14 months, resulting in a final sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, with the start date deemed to be the commencement of the original sentence. This outcome balances the need to hold the offender accountable with consideration of the personal circumstances and systemic factors that may have contributed to the offending.

Orders