R v Rangi - [2015] NZHC 1879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2015-041-000051 [2015] NZHC 1879

THE QUEEN

v

ANNIE RANGI AKA
ANNIE SAVAGE

Counsel:
S B Manning for Crown

E R Fairbrother QC and L P F Lafferty for Prisoner

Sentence:

11 August 2015

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Rangi, this morning I am sentencing you in relation to one charge of manslaughter.1 You pleaded guilty to that charge on 9 June 2015.

[2] In sentencing you I shall:

(1) Explain your offending.

(2) Discuss the impact of your offending on members of your whānau.

(3) Examine your personal circumstances.

(4) Set out the starting point of your sentence.

(5) Examine possible adjustments to the starting point.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 177(1). Maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

R v RANGI [2015] NZHC 1879 [11 August 2015]

(6) Explain your sentence.

(7) I shall also give you a “three strikes” warning, which I am required by law

to give you.

Your offending

[3] Your victim was your mother, Ms Aileen MacDonald. She was 70 years old at the time she died.

[4] On 28 December 2014 you were at your mother’s house in Napier. The two of you were drinking wine together. You began discussing family issues, including you expressing your anger at having been abandoned by your mother when you were a child and not being properly protected by her.

[5] At some time before 8.45 pm the argument escalated to the point where you punched Ms MacDonald to the head with your fist. Your mother was rendered unconscious. There is a factual dispute about whether you punched your mother once she fell to the floor and how many times you punched your mother. The pathologist’s report was not able to determine whether your mother was rendered unconscious from the first punch, or the combination of punches, which caused her to lose consciousness. What the pathology evidence clearly establishes is that your mother was punched approximately five times to the head and that those blows rendered your mother unconscious. This pathology evidence is entirely consistent with the statement you made to your brother, John, soon after the incident. This is not a “one-punch” case in which the victim was rendered unconscious by striking his or her head on the ground or other object. For the purposes of sentencing you, I am prepared to accept your assurance that you did not punch your mother whilst she was on the ground. Frankly, however, it makes very little difference if you punched your mother when she was on the ground or on the couch.

[6] What is clear from the pathology evidence is that you restrained your mother, forcibly, by her wrists and by pressing against her chest and punched her approximately five times to the head when she was in a very vulnerable position. I accept you then placed your mother in a comfortable position on the couch before

you left her home. You did not, however, call for…

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 Rangi

Details

AGLC: R v Rangi [2015] NZHC 1879
Case: [2015] NZHC 1879
Decision Date: 11 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Annie Rangi was convicted of manslaughter for fatally punching her mother, Aileen MacDonald, on December 28, 2014. The court accepted that the offender intended to cause serious harm, rendering the victim unconscious and causing her death from blunt force trauma to the head. Rangi left the scene and did not seek medical assistance. Rangi's offending was aggravated by the fact that the victim was particularly vulnerable and that Rangi struck her head on multiple occasions. Rangi had a history of abuse, which was a mitigating factor in the sentencing. The starting point for the sentence was set at seven years, but this was reduced to three years and six months to account for the offender's guilty plea, family history and provocation, remorse, and family circumstances. The court imposed a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, along with a "three strikes" warning.

The court held that the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 were achieved by the sentence imposed. The sentence held Rangi accountable for her actions, promoted a sense of responsibility, denounced her conduct, deterred her and others from similar offending, assisted in her rehabilitation, took into account the gravity of her offending and culpability, and was the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders