Hearing: 28 November 2016

Appearances:

N E Walker and J M Pridgeon for Crown
P Kaye and R Keam for C Taylor
M Mortimer and R McCausland for L Taylor
L Freyer and T Fitzgibbon for B Taylor

Judgment:

28 November 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau
P Kaye, Auckland
M Mortimer, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v TAYLOR [2016] NZHC 2846 [28 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms Taylor and Mr and Mrs Taylor, you appear today for sentencing today, having been found guilty of various charges by a jury on 5 August 2016. You may remain seated, until I ask you to stand.

[2] Ms Taylor, you were found guilty of manslaughter, by failing to provide your mother, Ena Lai Dung, with the necessaries of life, thereby causing her death. This is an offence pursuant to ss 150A, 151, 160(2)(b), 171 and 177 of the Crimes Act
1961. It is punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. You were also found guilty of two charges of dishonest use of documents, namely eftpos cards, belonging respectively to your deceased uncle, William Joe, and your mother. Both of these charges were representative charges. Each was an offence pursuant to s
228(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, and each carries a maximum penalty of seven years’

imprisonment.

[3] Mr and Mrs Taylor, both of you were found guilty of failing to protect a vulnerable adult, namely Ms Dung. This is an offence pursuant to s 195A of the Crimes Act, and it is punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

[4] You were all initially due to be sentenced on 21 September 2016. However, application was made by your counsel, Mrs Taylor, for an adjournment. She advised that a psychologist had been instructed to prepare a report in relation to you. I accepted that you should be given the opportunity to put before me all relevant information. At the conclusion of the trial I made it clear that a sentence of imprisonment was inevitable for you, Ms Taylor, and all but inevitable for you, Mr and Mrs Taylor. No doubt as a result, the adjournment request was not opposed by other counsel. Because one or more counsel, and/or I, were not available earlier, it was necessary to delay the sentencing until today.

[5] A psychologist’s report has been received, albeit very belatedly, from a Dr

Sakdalan. I refer to it shortly.

Relevant facts

[6] The deceased and her husband initially lived in Whakatane, with you, Ms Taylor. Although you have since taken the name Taylor by deed poll, you are the natural daughter of the deceased and her husband.

[7] When the Dungs were living in Whakatane, they came to know you, Mr and

Mr Taylor, and you became long-term friends.

[8] In about 2007, Ms Dung and her husband moved to Taupo,…

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 [2016] NZHC 2846
Case: [2016] NZHC 2846
Decision Date: 28 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cindy Taylor, Lana Taylor, and Brian Taylor were found guilty of various charges and appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing. Cindy Taylor was found guilty of manslaughter by failing to provide her mother with the necessaries of life, two charges of dishonest use of documents, and Lana and Brian Taylor were found guilty of failing to protect a vulnerable adult. The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. The court assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors for each offender and determined the appropriate starting points and sentences. For Cindy Taylor, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, 15 months for one count of dishonest use of a document, and 3 months for the second count, to be served concurrently. For Lana and Brian Taylor, the court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 3 months, and 6 years respectively, for failing to protect a vulnerable adult. The court also considered the possibility of a minimum term of imprisonment, but ultimately decided against it, as the imposed sentences were considered sufficient to hold the offenders accountable and deter others from committing similar offences.

Orders