R v Smith - [2021] NZHC 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-090-1566

[2021] NZHC 996

THE QUEEN

v

AMY CHRISTINE SMITH

Hearing: 29 April 2021

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and E J Smith for Crown S J Gray for Defendant

Sentence:

29 April 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel: S J Gray, Auckland

R v SMITH [2021] NZHC 996 [29 April 2021]

[1] Ms Smith, you are for sentence today for the manslaughter of Daniel Taylor on 3 April 2019.1 The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.2

[2] By a majority, a jury found you not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter following a trial in February and March 2021 at which I presided, so almost two years after Mr Taylor’s death. The trial being recent, I have a very clear recollection of the facts and the evidence and, indeed, as I said before, I have refreshed my memory on the evidence over the last few days in preparation for today.

[3] Following the jury’s verdict, I entered a conviction for manslaughter and gave you what we refer to as the “first strike” warning.

[4] Before I go any further, I wish to acknowledge Mr Taylor’s family. I am very sorry that Mrs Taylor Snr is unwell and not able to be with us. It would have been very difficult for you, and for your mother, to sit through the trial, but you have all done so, and she did so, with considerable dignity.

[5] This morning I have heard statements from Faye and Debra Taylor, and Elle Grobben and Summer Ash. And, of course, I have also had the benefit, before this morning, of reading those statements and the one provided by Carol Taylor. No one in the courtroom will be in any doubt about what Mr Taylor’s death has meant for those close to him.

[6] Mr Taylor was a greatly loved son, brother and father, uncle, grandfather and of course, Ms Smith, he was also your partner of 12 years.

Process

[7] In so far as concerns the process to be followed this morning, it is necessary for me first to summarise the facts of the offending and what happened after that and before trial. Then I can turn to the sentencing process itself, which comprises two stages. The process does take some time but I need to explain the reasons for what I

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 171.
2 Section 177.

have decided to the Crown, to Mr Taylor’s family, and of course to you. You will not know the sentence until I get to the very end, so please bear with me until then.

Facts

[8]There was never much dispute at trial about what occurred.

[9] You and Mr Taylor lived on his farm at South Head. Mr Taylor had a substantial crop of cannabis growing on his farm. You were both addicted to cannabis and methamphetamine.

[10]…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2021] NZHC 996
Case: [2021] NZHC 996
Decision Date: 29 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involves the defendant, Amy Christine Smith, who was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in relation to the death of Daniel Taylor. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry presided over the sentencing, which took place on 29 April 2021. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence for Smith, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors of her case. The court had to establish a starting point for the sentence, based on the culpability of the offence, and then adjust that starting point based on factors personal to the defendant.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the starting point for manslaughter, which is always a serious offence as it results in the loss of a life. The court then considered various factors personal to Smith, including her compliance with strict electronic monitoring bail conditions for 13 months, her efforts to rehabilitate herself by overcoming a longstanding addiction to drugs, and her genuine remorse for the loss of Mr Taylor's life. The court also took into account Smith's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter towards the end of 2020, which, if accepted, would have avoided the need for a trial and spared both Smith and the Taylor family a significant ordeal.

After considering all the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment. The court then applied various reductions based on Smith's personal factors, such as her compliance with bail conditions and her efforts towards rehabilitation. The court also recognised Smith's offer to plead guilty, which warranted a significant reduction in her sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Smith to nine months of home detention and 400 hours of community work, to be served concurrently with the sentence of home detention.

The final orders of the court were that Amy Christine Smith be sentenced to nine months' home detention and 400 hours of community work, to be served concurrently with the sentence of home detention, for the manslaughter of Daniel Taylor.

Orders