R v Wallis - [2023] NZHC 2029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2022-042-419

[2023] NZHC 2029

THE KING

v

DANIEL WALLIS

Hearing: 1 August 2023

Counsel:

R W Donnelly for the Crown

M J Vesty and M Zintl for the Defendant

Date:

1 August 2023

SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J

Introduction

[1] I start by acknowledging all who are present here today. The circumstances that bring all of you here are nothing short of tragic. The death of a baby is hard enough, but the death of a baby at the hands of a family member is unimaginably more difficult. Cases such as this are among the hardest cases the Court has to deal with. Nothing I can say today, let alone the sentence I impose, can ever make the grief you feel any better.

[2] At the outset, I want to acknowledge your loss. But to those of you present, as you may understand, there is a process I must follow. It may seem clinical and dispassionate, and hearing what happened to Hope will be distressing to everyone. I

R v WALLIS [2023] NZHC 2029 [1 August 2023]

apologise for that, but it is part of the sentencing process I must follow to ensure that the sentence I impose is transparent.

[3] I now turn to the matters I must address in imposing sentence and this is, in the main, addressed to you Mr Wallis.

[4] Mr Wallis, you appear before the Court today having pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter.1 The maximum penalty is a term of life imprisonment.

[5] Because you have pleaded guilty to the charge, the facts relating to your offending are outlined in a Summary of Facts, which I now must outline.

Facts

[6] The victim in this matter was your infant daughter Hope who was chronologically five months old at the time she died, but developmentally likely two months old because she was born prematurely. You were 24 years of age at the time Hope died and you and Hope’s mother were living together.

[7] Hope was born prematurely on 25 August 2021. She was cared for in a neonatal unit for a number of weeks. But, on 21 December 2021, she was released into the care of you and her mother in Invercargill. She was however subject to extensive ongoing care and observation and, on 19 January 2022, underwent a routine comprehensive examination by a local consultant paediatrician who reported that she was progressing well and was in good health.

[8] On the evening of 21 January 2022, you were at the family home with Hope and her mother. Hope’s mother fed her and read her a book before she was settled into her bassinette. Following this, you were left in charge of looking after Hope while her mother went to visit friends. There is a suggestion that you were not happy about this given that, for you, it was the end of a long week…

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 Wallis

Details

AGLC: R v Wallis [2023] NZHC 2029
Case: [2023] NZHC 2029
Decision Date: 1 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wallis involved a tragic incident where the defendant, Daniel Wallis, pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his five-month-old daughter, Hope, who died from injuries sustained from being struck by her father. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the aggravating factors of the case, including the vulnerability of the victim and the breach of trust as her father, as well as the mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, and lack of previous convictions. The High Court of New Zealand, Invercargill Registry, under Harland J, carefully considered the impact on the victim's family and the defendant's personal circumstances before arriving at a sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment, which was a 40 per cent reduction from the starting point due to mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the gravity of the offence and the applicability of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also had to ensure the sentence was consistent with other sentences for similar offences, while acknowledging that no sentence could compensate for the loss of Hope's life. The court's reasoning focused on balancing the principles of denunciation, accountability, and rehabilitation in light of the unique circumstances of the case. The outcome was a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's culpability, and his personal circumstances, including his remorse and the impact on his own life.

Orders