R v Ruddelle - [2020] NZHC 1983

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-1067

[2020] NZHC 1983

THE QUEEN

v

KAREN ANNE RUDDELLE

Hearing: 7 August 2020

Appearances:

Y V Yelavich for the Crown

S D Cassidy for K A Ruddelle

Date of sentence:

7 August 2020

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors:
S D Cassidy, Barrister, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Crown Solicitor, Manukau

R v RUDDELLE [2020] NZHC 1983 [7 August 2020]

Introduction

[1] Ms Karen Ruddelle, of Ngāti Mahuta and Ngāti Maniapoto, is aged 58. In the early hours of 14 November 2018, she stabbed her partner, Mr Joseph Ngapera, killing him. She was charged with murder. On 20 February 2020, she was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter by a majority of the jury, 11 to one, and convicted. Her sentencing has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, to enable family members of Ms Ruddelle and Mr Ngapera to attend the sentencing as you have today. Ms Ruddelle was remanded on bail before the trial and, since her conviction, has been on bail and electronically monitored (EM) bail with a 24-hour curfew, apart from attending church services. I sentence her today.

Approach to sentencing

[2] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). In this case, I have particular regard to the purposes of holding Ms Ruddelle accountable for the harm she caused to Mr Ngapera and the community; promoting in her a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; providing for the interests of the victims of this offence, including Mr Ngapera’s whānau; denouncing Ms Ruddelle’s conduct; deterring similar future offending; and assisting in her rehabilitation and reintegration to society.

[3] In terms of principles I take into account in particular: the gravity of the offending and the degree of Ms Ruddelle’s culpability; the desirability of consistency of sentences for similar offending; the effect of the offending on the victims; Ms Ruddelle’s personal, whānau and cultural background; and I impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances as I am required to do.

What happened?

[4]First, I outline the facts of the offending.

The relationship as the context for the offending

[5] In order to assess Ms Ruddelle’s culpability in offending, I need to consider the evidence of her relationship with Mr Ngapera, including evidence given by two experts in the trial. The jury would have taken this evidence into account in reaching their verdicts. But because it is relevant to Ms Ruddelle’s culpability, I also need take it into account in sentencing.

[6] Ms Ruddelle’s upbringing in Māngere in the 1970s was turbulent. Her evidence at trial was that her parents drank and fought a lot.1 She said, as the eldest of six children, she was groomed by her mother to always ring the police…

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 Ruddelle

Details

AGLC: R v Ruddelle [2020] NZHC 1983
Case: [2020] NZHC 1983
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Karen Ruddelle was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter by a jury for the stabbing death of her partner, Joseph Ngapera. She appealed against her sentence, arguing it was excessive. The court considered various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and Ruddelle's background and personal circumstances. The court found that Ruddelle's actions were influenced by a history of family violence and social entrapment, which affected her culpability. The court also considered the impact of the offence on Ngapera's family and the need for deterrence and denunciation. After considering all the factors, the court determined that a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive outcome that was appropriate in the circumstances and imposed a sentence of 11 months and 2 weeks' home detention.

Orders