R v Roberts - [2021] NZHC 146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-063-003591

[2021] NZHC 146

THE QUEEN

V

SHANE CLAUDE ROBERTS

Hearing: 12 February 2021

Counsel:

A Gordon for Crown S Lance for defendant

Sentencing:

12 February 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors:Gordon Pilditch Solicitors, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua

Counsel: S Lance, City Chambers, Auckland

R v ROBERTS [2021] NZHC 146 [12 February 2021]

Mihi

Haere, haere, haere atu rā, e Karlos
Haere ki Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamao Ki te kainga tūturu mō tatou, mō te tāngata

Kei te ngau tōnu te mamae i te ngākau o te tāngata kua mahue i tēnei taha o te arai. Nō reira, e moe, otiia atu.

Ka huri ki a tātou, tēna koutou katoa kua huihui i te ata nei Ki te whānau o te hunga mate
Ka nui te mihi.
Ki a koe, e Te Ao
Kei te mihi ki a koutou ko tōu whānau
Nō reira, tēna koutou, tēna koutou, tēna koutou katoa

To the deceased, Karlos Farewell
Travel on your final journey to great Hawaiki, long Hawaiki, and distant Hawaiki The final resting place of us all
The pain of your departure gnaws at the heart of those that remain on this side of the veil
So farewell and rest peacefully Turning to those present
To the whānau of the deceased, I greet you
I acknowledge Karlos and your whanau present So I greet you once, twice, and three times.

Introduction

[1] Shane Roberts, you were convicted, following a jury trial, of the manslaughter of Karlos Stephens, an infant who was in your care. You appear today for sentence. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

What happened?

[2] Karlos was 10 months old at the time of his death. He was one of twins, born in January 2014 to a single mother who already had four sons. Although she loved her twin boys deeply, for personal reasons she struggled to provide a stable home for them. When they were about five months old you offered to care for them. You explained that you and your former partner, with whom you maintained a close

relationship, were experienced with twins, having raised twin girls of your own. I accept that you offered to look after the twins with the best of motives and out of a wish to help their mother.

[3] Karlos’s mother accepted your offer and you took the twins into your care. Although you had significant involvement in their lives, it appears that much of the day to day care of the children fell to your former partner and your teenage daughters. Over the next few months the twins were cared for, and by all accounts treated very lovingly, by both you and your extended whānau. An Oranga Tamariki social worker gave evidence at trial of the strong bond you had with the boys. I accept that you genuinely loved them.

[4]…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2021] NZHC 146
Case: [2021] NZHC 146
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Roberts was convicted of the manslaughter of Karlos Stephens, a 10-month-old infant in his care. The case was heard and decided by Katz J in the High Court of New Zealand. The central legal issue was determining an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.

The court found that Karlos was a defenceless and vulnerable child entirely dependent on Roberts. The degree of violence used against Karlos was significant, as indicated by the severe brain injury that led to his death. The court also highlighted the delay in seeking medical attention and Roberts' efforts to conceal the true circumstances of Karlos's death as aggravating factors. The impact on Karlos's family, who lost a deeply loved child, was considered. The court concluded that a starting point of eight years' imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offence.

Considering Roberts' personal circumstances, the court acknowledged his background of systemic poverty, violence, and lack of positive role models. The court accepted that these factors contributed to his offending, warranting a 10% discount on the starting point. The court also recognised the time Roberts had spent on electronically monitored bail prior to trial, resulting in an additional 10-month discount. After adjusting the starting point for these factors, Roberts was sentenced to six years and five months imprisonment for the manslaughter of Karlos Stephens.

Orders