R v S

Case [2024] NZHC 1015 30 April 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

THIS JUDGMENT IS ANONYMISED CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDER FOR INTERIM NAME SUPPRESSION OF MR S AS SET OUT AT [19] IN [2024] NZHC 1020.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-092-4306

[2024] NZHC 1015

THE KING

v

S

Hearing: 30 April 2024

Appearances:

C P Howard and K F R Karpik for Crown

M S Williams and A M H Cranstoun for Defendant

Sentence:

30 April 2024

SENTENCING NOTES OF O’GORMAN J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v S [2024] NZHC 1015 [30 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] Mr S, you are for sentence today, having been found guilty by a jury on two charges, namely that you murdered your eight-month-old daughter, F, and that you assaulted her on at least one other prior occasion.

[2] When a person is convicted of murder, they must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.1 If life imprisonment is imposed, a minimum period of imprisonment, or MPI, must then be set. An MPI is the time that must be served in prison before you are eligible to be considered for parole.

[3] The Crown submits that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate — there are no circumstances that would make that sentence manifestly unjust. The Crown also takes the position that an MPI of 17 years is triggered and appropriate in terms of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

[4]On your behalf, Mr Williams responsibly accepts that position.

[5] Before I address the sentencing aspects, it is necessary to summarise the circumstances of the offending.

Summary of offending

[6] The critical events for the murder conviction occurred between Friday 20 May 2022 and Monday 23 May 2022. At that time, you were 24 years old. You had been in a relationship with Ms P for several years and were living together. Your daughter F was almost nine months old. By your own account, you never bonded well with your daughter, and felt she had not warmed to you.

[7] On the evening of Friday 20 May 2022, you went into the bedroom where F was supposed to be sleeping. F looked up at you and started crying. She behaved like she was scared of you, and that reaction made you angry. So you decided she needed

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

a hiding. You wanted to discipline her, and you thought that giving her a hiding would end your anger.

[8] Your assault of F on that Friday evening happened in a continuous act taking only a minute or two:

(a)First, as F was lying flat on the bed, you slapped her legs four times, then slapped her hand. You used an open palm for these strikes.

(b)You then lifted F into a sitting position so you could punch F several times in the stomach. You said you used seven out of 10 force 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 S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2024] NZHC 1015
Case: [2024] NZHC 1015
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr S was sentenced for the murder of his eight-month-old daughter, F, and an assault on her on at least one prior occasion. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for these crimes, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case. The primary issue was whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust, and if so, the appropriate minimum non-parole period (MPI).

The court found that the circumstances of the offence and the offender did not render a sentence of life imprisonment manifestly unjust. Mr S, aged 24 at the time of the offence, showed callous indifference by assaulting his vulnerable baby, leading to her death. The court compared this case to others involving the murder of infants, which justified a similar approach. The statutory minimum MPI of 17 years was deemed appropriate given the factors of vulnerability and brutality. The court also sentenced Mr S to three months' imprisonment for the assault, to be served concurrently with the life sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Mr S be sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for the murder, and three months' imprisonment for the assault, to be served concurrently.

Orders