R v Paton - [2013] NZHC 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

CRI-2012-016-409 [2013] NZHC 21

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICIA ERICA PATON

Sentence: 21 January 2013

Counsel: C R Walker for Crown
D J Sharp for Prisoner

Date: 28 January 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] I have to sentence you this morning on your conviction for manslaughter.

[2] On 14 February 2012, a party developed at your house in suburban Gisborne. There was a good deal of drinking. You and your long-term partner, Lawrence Moon, had argued during the afternoon. In the early evening, you left the property with some of the other women for a short period. On your return, you wrongly accused your partner of attacking your own brother, who had been at the party but had left thinking that he had been abused by Mr Moon. More pointedly, you renewed criticism of your partner for wanting to have sex with another of the women at the party. That was also a criticism that you accepted at trial was not justified. Your partner attacked you in or around the hallway of your house. You attempted to
defend yourself and hit back. I note that the day after the attack, you had facial and

R v PATON HC GIS CRI-2012-016-409 [28 January 2013]

other injuries consistent with having been beaten. But that was nothing new. You lived long-term within a violent relationship, and beatings were sadly a routine part of that relationship.

[3] In any event, on the day in question your partner followed you into the kitchen. You grabbed two large kitchen knives and, you say, he challenged you to use one of them. Having dropped one, you stabbed him in the neck with the other. He died quickly from the massive loss of blood. The jury, correctly on the view I take of the evidence, rejected your claim that your partner had seized the hand in which you were holding the knife and pushed it into his own neck. The jury also rejected the claim that you acted with a proportionate response in self-defence.

[4] You fled the scene and hitchhiked to Opotiki, where you presented yourself at the Police station the following day.

[5] The lasting image I am left with from the trial is the entirely casual acceptance by all your friends who gave evidence at the trial, and from your own evidence, of the serious level of violence that occurred apparently throughout most of the long-term relationship you had with your partner. One woman recalled occasions on which she saw you “all bruised up” as if that was a natural alternative to your being, for instance, “all dressed up”. Another witness spoke of the number of times that she saw or heard from others about you having had “the bash”, again as if injuries from the domestic assaults were an entirely normal part of life. You thought that a life of violence with your partner was preferable to life for you and your children without…

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 Paton

Details

AGLC: R v Paton [2013] NZHC 21
Case: [2013] NZHC 21
Decision Date: 28 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paton involved Patricia Erica Paton, who was convicted of manslaughter following the stabbing death of her partner, Lawrence Moon, during a party at her home in Gisborne. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Paton, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and her personal background. The key legal issues revolved around the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the influence of domestic violence on Paton's actions, and the factors to be considered when assessing her culpability as an offender. The court considered comparable cases involving women who had resorted to stabbing their violent partners, resulting in fatal consequences, to determine an appropriate starting point for Paton's sentence. After evaluating the circumstances of the offence and Paton's personal background, the court determined that a term of imprisonment of five and a half years was the appropriate starting point. The court also considered the impact of domestic violence on Paton's actions and her personal circumstances when assessing her culpability as the offender. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of five years and three months' imprisonment, with three months' deduction for relevant mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court included a first warning to Paton of the consequences of being convicted of any serious violent offence committed after receiving the warning, in accordance with section 86A of the Sentencing Act. If Paton were to be convicted of a serious violent offence, except murder, after receiving the warning, she would receive a final warning, and any subsequent sentence of imprisonment (other than life imprisonment for manslaughter or preventive detention) would be served without parole or early release. If Paton were convicted of murder after receiving the warning, she would be sentenced to imprisonment for life, to be served without parole unless the sentencing judge considered it manifestly unjust to do so.

Orders