Hearing: 27 June 2016

Counsel:

A J Gordon and C H Macklin for Crown
R M Mansfield and S Lack for Shailer
H Edward and T Braithwaite for Haerewa

Sentencing:

27 June 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Counsel: R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland
H Edward, Barrister, Rotorua

R v SHAILER AND HAEREWA [2016] NZHC 1414 [27 June 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms Shailer and Mr Haerewa, you appear before me today to be sentenced for the manslaughter1 and ill treatment2 of Moko Rangitoheriri. Moko was in your care from 12 June 2015 until his death on 10 August 2015. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for ill treatment of a child is 10 years’ imprisonment.

The offending

[2] Three year old Moko and his seven year old sister were left in your care by their mother on 12 June 2015. She was unable to care for them at the time, as she was with her eldest child at Starship Hospital in Auckland. You agreed to help out, initially for a couple of weeks. You have four children of your own, aged between two and seven years.

[3] Two months after Moko was entrusted to your care, at 3:00 pm on 10 August

2015, Ms Shailer dialled ‘111’ and requested an ambulance. You told the operator that Moko had fallen from a wood pile the previous day, that he had sustained severe bruising, but that he had been fine earlier in the day. You said that Moko was now really cold, unconscious, not breathing properly and that his stomach was really hard.

[4] The visual injuries and condition of Moko were such that the ambulance officers rushed him straight to the emergency department at Taupo Hospital, where he was taken immediately to the resuscitation room. He had extensive facial injuries and swelling. Both of his eyes were swollen to such an extent that staff were not able to open his eyelids to check his pupils. His abdomen was extremely distended. He had bruising on the front and back of his body, abrasions and what appeared to be bite marks to his face and arms. Staff were initially unable to obtain a body
temperature, because he was too cold for any of their measurement devices.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 66(1), 160(2)(a), 171 and 177.
2 Section 195.

[5] Due to the severity of Moko’s condition the Taupo medical team made immediate contact with Starship Hospital and a helicopter and staff were dispatched urgently from Auckland to transfer Moko to Starship. Tragically, however, despite their best efforts, the medical staff were unable to revive Moko. At 10:00 pm he was pronounced dead.

[6] A post mortem examination was carried out. The pathologist determined that the direct cause of Moko’s death was multiple blunt force injuries. The lethal injuries that caused Moko’s…

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 Shailer

Details

AGLC: R v Shailer [2016] NZHC 1414
Case: [2016] NZHC 1414
Decision Date: 27 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tania Shailer and David Haerewa were convicted of the manslaughter and ill treatment of Moko Rangitoheriri, a three-year-old child who was in their care. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for the severe and prolonged abuse and neglect that led to Moko's death. The legal issues included establishing the starting point for sentencing based on the seriousness of the offending, assessing the relative culpability of the two defendants, and considering personal mitigating factors such as guilty pleas and mental health issues. The court found the case to be among the most serious of manslaughter cases due to the extreme violence, prolonged nature of the abuse, and the vulnerability of the victim. After considering personal circumstances and mitigating factors, the court sentenced both defendants to 17 years' imprisonment, with a minimum period of nine years, for manslaughter and seven years and six months' imprisonment concurrently for ill treatment of a child. This decision reflects the gravity of the crime and aims to denounce the conduct and deter similar offences in the future.

Orders