Legal Research
Cases
R v Solomon

R v Solomon

Case [2016] NZHC 1653 19 July 2016

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Trust

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Mens Rea & Intention

Vulnerable Victim

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-092-008748 [2016] NZHC 1653

THE QUEEN

v

TROY LOUIS STUART SOLOMON

Hearing: 19 July 2016

Counsel:

A J F Perkins & L P Radich for Crown
P K Hamlin & J R Northwood for Defendant

Sentence:

19 July 2016

SENTENCE OF PAUL DAVISON J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

R v SOLOMON [2016] NZHC 1653 [19 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Solomon, you appear today for sentencing, having been found guilty for the murder of your five-month old daughter, Aaliyah Izabella Betty Solomon, at your home on 7 August 2014.

[2] Some members of Aaliyah’s family and also some of your family are present here in Court this morning, as they were during your trial. While no doubt some of them are here to support you personally, quite obviously, all of Aaliyah’s whanau are deeply affected by grief and the tragic death of this precious child and member of the family. I commence by extending the sympathy of the Court to Aaliyah’s family for her loss.

[3] Whenever a child dies and an infant life is lost, and particularly in circumstances such as this, not only does the immediate family grieve, but the whole community does too. Aaliyah was a member of our community. As members of society, we all have a responsibility for those among us who are especially vulnerable and who need special care and protection. All infants and children in the care and custody of adults should be entirely safe and secure. The tragedy here is that Aaliyah’s life was taken from her by the actions of and injuries caused by and inflicted by her own father – as her parent, the person she looked to for care and protection, and a person our community expected to discharge that responsibility. So in sentencing you today, the Court must hold you accountable for what you have done, for the life you have taken, and to send a clear and emphatic message that there is no tolerance whatsoever for violence towards children, and that the Court can be expected to reflect community expectations and standards, and impose a stern punishment upon anyone who offends in that manner. In your case, for the murder of your daughter.

The facts

[4] On the morning of Thursday 7 August 2014, Aaliyah and your step-son were in your individual sole care while your partner took your other daughter (then 22 months old) with her, and went to the supermarket to do some shopping.

[5] That morning, you had been using cannabis. It is not clear from the evidence just when in relation to the crucial events that caused Aaliyah’s death this occurred, but you later told the Police that you had “just got fucken high” and that you were “under the influence”, saying “I wasn’t straight”. You further explained to the Police that…

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 Solomon

Details

AGLC: R v Solomon [2016] NZHC 1653
Case: [2016] NZHC 1653
Decision Date: 19 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Troy Louis Stuart Solomon, was convicted of the murder of his five-month old daughter Aaliyah Izabella Betty Solomon. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, such as the breach of trust from the defendant's position of responsibility as Aaliyah's parent, the level of violence involved in the offending, and the defendant's callousness in attempting to conceal and avoid responsibility. The court also considered the defendant's age, lack of prior convictions, and his lack of meaningful remorse as potential mitigating factors. However, the court found that these factors did not warrant a departure from the statutory minimum term.

The court found that the defendant's case fell within the provisions of s 104 of the Sentencing Act, which required the imposition of a minimum sentence of 17 years' imprisonment for murder cases of this serious kind. The court concluded that it would not be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum term of 17 years on the defendant.

Orders