R v Taylor - [2017] NZHC 1257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-009-6408 [2017] NZHC 1257

THE QUEEN

v

TROY KEVIN TAYLOR

Hearing: 20-30 March 2017

Appearances:

M N Zarifeh for the Crown
P J Shamy for the Defendant

Judgment:

9 June 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MANDER J

Three strikes warning

[1] Before I proceed to sentence you, I am required under the Sentencing Act to

give you what is described as the “three strikes warning”.1

[2] Because of your conviction on the charge of murder you are now subject to the three strikes law. I am going to give you a warning of the consequences of a conviction for another serious violence offence. You will also be provided with a written notice which contains a list of these serious violent offences.

[3] The warning is this: If you are convicted of any one or more serious violent offence, other than murder, committed after this warning, and if the Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment, then you will serve that sentence without parole or early
release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning, then you must

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86A.

R v TROY KEVIN TAYLOR [2017] NZHC 1257 [9 June 2017]

be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. In that event, the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment.

Sentencing

[4] Mr Taylor, as you well know, you are for sentence this morning for the murder of Ihaka Stokes who was aged 15 months. You are also for sentence on a related charge of assault on a child.

[5] Murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It has been realistically accepted on your behalf that a sentence of life imprisonment is inevitable. The only issue for me to determine today is the minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before being eligible to apply for parole. Before I address that issue it is necessary to refer to the circumstances of your offending.

Facts

[6] You and the child’s mother, Ms Mikala Stokes with whom you were in a relationship, were living together with Ihaka. On the night before Ihaka’s death, you assaulted the child. It appears Ihaka may have been coming down with a cold and he would not settle. In the morning, Ihaka presented with bruising to his face, in particular a bruise to his forehead and to the right side of his jaw. Because of those injuries and Ihaka’s symptoms of having a cold and an infected ear, he was taken to the doctor.

[7] The narrative you provided, both to Ms Stokes and to the doctor, was that Ihaka had fallen during the night and banged himself on the cot. At trial you abandoned that explanation and maintained you had dropped Ihaka in the lounge as a result of ongoing symptoms of concussion which caused you to become dizzy. The jury, in my view understandably, rejected that explanation.

[8] The following night…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2017] NZHC 1257
Case: [2017] NZHC 1257
Decision Date: 9 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the defendant, Troy Kevin Taylor, faced sentencing for the murder of a 15-month-old child, Ihaka Stokes, and a related charge of assaulting a child. The court had to decide on the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment before Taylor would be eligible for parole, given the severity of the crime and the statutory requirement for a minimum term in such cases. The legal issues centered on the applicability of the three strikes law, the aggravating and mitigating factors in Taylor’s case, and the appropriate non-parole period to reflect his culpability.

The court's reasoning took into account the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the violent nature of the crime, and the abuse of trust by Taylor, who had assumed a parental role. Despite Taylor's genuine sorrow and the absence of a previous history of violence, the court found that the severity of the crime and the multiple instances of violence warranted a significant minimum term. The court noted that while Taylor's difficulties with concussion might have contributed to his actions, they did not diminish his culpability. The court ultimately decided that a minimum period of 17 years imprisonment was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that Taylor be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Ihaka Stokes, with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years. On the count of assault, Taylor was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The court's decision emphasized the importance of holding Taylor accountable for his actions while considering the principles of sentencing and the need for public protection.

Orders