R v Sinclair - [2021] NZHC 569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CRI-2019-009-006219

[2021] NZHC 569

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID GRANT SINCLAIR

Hearing: 19 March 2021

Counsel:

D L Elsmore and W S Taffs for Crown

M Starling and N R Wham for Defendant

Sentence:

19 March 2021

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: M Starling, Christchurch

Solicitors: Raymond Donnelly and Co (Office of the Crown Solicitor) Christchurch

R v SINCLAIR [2021] NZHC 569 [19 March 2021]

[1] Mr Sinclair, you are here to be sentenced for the murder of your baby son, CJ. A jury found you guilty of murder after a two-week trial last year.

[2] Sentencing is a solemn and formal occasional. But it is also an emotionally charged time, especially when the victim is a 10-month old baby. Before I go on, I do want to acknowledge those who are here today and who are directly affected by the loss of CJ’s life, and in particular, his family who are in the back of the courtroom. It is clear that CJ was much loved.

[3] Mr Sinclair, the law provides that I must sentence you to life imprisonment unless the circumstances are such that this would be manifestly unjust. There is nothing to suggest that it would be manifestly unjust to impose that sentence in your case and so life imprisonment will be your sentence.

[4] What I must decide today is how long you will stay in prison before you will become eligible for parole. There is essentially no dispute between counsel that it should be 17 years, but the decision about the minimum period of imprisonment is mine to make. I therefore need to consider whether 17 years, or some other minimum period of imprisonment, should be imposed.

The offending

[5] Sentencing follows a process, and the first step in that process is to summarise your offending.

[6] CJ was born on 6 September 2018. You and CJ’s mother were not together and there was tension between you as to who was to care for CJ. His mother and her family looked after CJ for the first eight and a half months of his life, and then you became his sole caregiver. He lived with you and your older son from a different relationship.

[7] The evidence at trial suggested that CJ was a happy baby with an even temperament. He was sitting by himself, crawling, and pulling himself up on furniture. In the weeks leading up to his death, CJ was teething and as a result was probably grizzly.

[8] We do not know exactly what happened the night CJ died. But what we do know is that he was at home with you, and in the early hours of 9 July 2019, he sustained horrific head injuries that ultimately led to his death. And I will say more on these injuries shortly.

[9] We know that the injuries were likely sustained in the early hours of…

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 Sinclair

Details

AGLC: R v Sinclair [2021] NZHC 569
Case: [2021] NZHC 569
Decision Date: 19 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand at Greymouth, the defendant, David Grant Sinclair, was sentenced for the murder of his 10-month-old son, CJ. The court heard that Sinclair was found guilty of murder by a jury following a two-week trial. The legal issues that the court had to address included determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Sinclair becomes eligible for parole, and whether a 17-year minimum period was manifestly unjust. The court considered the severity of the injuries inflicted upon CJ, the vulnerability of the victim, the extent of loss and harm, the breach of trust, and the delay in seeking help for CJ. The court found that a 17-year minimum period was not manifestly unjust, and thus, Sinclair was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 17 years before he becomes eligible for parole. The court emphasised the need to hold Sinclair accountable for his actions, to denounce his conduct, to deter others, and to protect the community from him.

Orders