R v Sio

Case [2021] NZHC 1709 9 July 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-598

[2021] NZHC 1709

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM JAMES SIO

Hearing: 9 July 2021

Appearances:

A Gordon for the Crown F Wood for the Defendant

Sentencing:

9 July 2021

SENTENCE OF GAULT J

Solicitors:
Ms A Gordon, Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua (amanda.gordon@gordonpilditch.co.nz)
Mr F Wood, Tompkins Wake, Solicitors, Rotorua (fraser.wood@tompkinswake.co.nz)

R v SIO [2021] NZHC 1709 [9 July 2021]

[1] Mr Sio, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of murder,1 three charges of ill- treatment of a child,2 and one charge of assault on a child,3 following a sentence indication I gave you on 29 April 2021.4 I will annex this sentence indication to my sentencing remarks but it is necessary to repeat much of it given the public nature of this sentencing.

Facts

[2]I begin by setting out the facts of your offending.5

[3] Your son, Ferro-James, was born in 2014. You and his mother separated prior to him turning one. He was initially cared for by his mother. In 2017, you took full custody of him. Ferro-James was described as being a polite, friendly child who had a great nature.

[4] You and your de facto partner are the two defendants in this case. Your relationship began in 2018. It was volatile. You argued often. On occasions there was physical violence between you, becoming more frequent and more serious. You often separated for short periods. You were both responsible for the violence.

[5] From approximately the beginning of September 2018, you lived with your partner and Ferro-James at various locations in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty area. Ferro-James attended Kohanga Reo in Tauranga. His teachers observed bruising and pinch type marks to his ears, arms, back and shoulders. A Kohanga teacher raised concerns with you several times, advising you that Ferro-James said your partner was responsible. You would deny that. Following these conversations, the teacher observed that the marks would disappear for a time. The marks would subsequently reappear.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 172. Maximum penalty: life imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 195. Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194. Maximum penalty: 2 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Sio [2021] NZHC 943.
5      The agreed summary of facts was amended slightly between indication and sentencing. None of the amendments impacts on the overall sentence.

[6] You routinely had unrealistic expectations as to how your young son should behave and when behaviour fell short of your expectations, you would physically assault him, often for minor things, such as failing to eat all his dinner or to sit still. The assaults included being hit across the head, ears or mouth, kicked on the bottom or dragged out of the room by his arm. You would shut him in his bedroom, sometimes all day. You sometimes punished him by putting him in the corner of the room, facing the wall,…

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 Sio

Details

AGLC: R v Sio [2021] NZHC 1709
Case: [2021] NZHC 1709
Decision Date: 9 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William James Sio was convicted of one charge of murder, three charges of ill-treatment of a child, and one charge of assault on a child. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Rotorua Registry. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that Sio must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The court had to determine whether imposing a 17-year MPI would be manifestly unjust, considering Sio's personal circumstances and the aggravating features of his offending.

The court first identified the aggravating features of the case, which included the vulnerability of the deceased, the gross breach of trust, the extent and severity of the abuse, and the failure to seek medical assistance. The court then considered the mitigating factors, such as Sio's guilty plea, his disadvantaged upbringing, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court concluded that while some discount was warranted for these factors, it was not enough to make a 17-year MPI manifestly unjust. The court imposed a 17-year MPI for the murder charge, along with concurrent sentences for the other charges.

In summary, the court carefully weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence for Sio. The 17-year MPI for the murder charge reflects the seriousness of the offending and the need to give effect to the legislative policy mandated by the statutory MPI for such murders. The court's decision ensures that Sio is held accountable for his actions and provides a just outcome for the victim and the community.

Orders