R v Sisley - [2014] NZHC 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-063-90 [2014] NZHC 396

THE QUEEN

v

PIRIPI TE RAME SISLEY

Hearing: 7 March 2014

Appearances: C Macklin for Crown
H Edward for Prisoner

Sentence: 7 March 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v SISLEY [2014] NZHC 396 [7 March 2014]

[1] Mr Sisley, you appear for sentence today after having accepted a sentence indication provided by Wylie J on 26 February 2014.1 Following that sentence indication, you entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assaulting a child under s 194(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for that offence is two years imprisonment. You also pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding the same child with reckless disregard for the child’s safety. That is an offence against s 188(2) of the
Crimes Act 1961, and is subject to a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

[2] Originally you faced another charge of intentionally applying force to the same child. The Crown offered no evidence on that charge when you entered your guilty pleas on the remaining two charges. In case it has not already been done, I now make an order under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 discharging you on that charge.

Background

[3] I do not propose to set out the facts underlying your offending again. They were canvassed fully by Wylie J in his sentence indication. In short, the assault charge arises out of an incident in which you twisted the ears of a nine month old child for whom you and your partner were caring for a period of three days in December 2012. During the same period, you also became involved in another violent incident in respect of the same child. This caused damage to the child’s brain.

Victim impact statements

[4] The only material that is now before me that was not before Wylie J takes the form of two victim impact statements. These were prepared by the person who is currently caring for the child, and by a paediatrician who has been involved in the child’s rehabilitation. The victim is now nearly two years of age. It appears that he has settled in well in his new home environment. He has also recovered to some
extent from the physical injuries he suffered as a result of your offending.

1 R v Sisley [2014] NZHC 300 (copy attached).

[5] The victim impact statements make it clear, however, that it is likely that your offending will have significant ongoing effects for your victim. He is already showing a weakness down the left side of his body, and at this stage it is unknown whether this is likely to be permanent. Whether or not the brain damage will have lasting effects is also a matter of conjecture. In reality, however, it is likely that your offending will have at least some impact on your victim for the remainder of his life.

The indication

[6] The Judge indicated that pleas 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 Sisley

Details

AGLC: R v Sisley [2014] NZHC 396
Case: [2014] NZHC 396
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Sisley was sentenced on two charges of assaulting a nine-month-old child while in his care. The charges were assaulting the child by twisting his ears, and wounding the child with reckless disregard for his safety. The latter charge resulted in significant harm to the child, including brain damage. Sisley was sentenced by Wylie J on the basis of a sentence indication given on 26 February 2014. The indication was that Sisley would be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Sisley entered a guilty plea to both charges, resulting in a sentence of three years' imprisonment for the wounding charge, and three months' imprisonment for the assault charge, to be served concurrently. Sisley's criminal history, which included violence-related offences, was considered by Wylie J, who determined that it did not warrant an increase in the starting point of the sentence. The court also considered victim impact statements, which highlighted the ongoing effects of the offending on the child. The final orders included a requirement for Sisley to undergo treatment and rehabilitation courses in relation to parenting skills and anger management.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the imposition of special conditions for release. The court considered the vulnerability of the child, the seriousness of the injuries, and the pattern of offending in determining the starting point. The court also considered Sisley's criminal history and the delay in providing a sentencing indication. The court ultimately determined that the starting point for sentencing was three years and three months' imprisonment, and that a discount of three months should be applied due to the late request for a sentencing indication. The court also determined that a three strikes warning was required under the three strikes legislation.

Orders