R v Wichman - [2016] NZHC 1663

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-085-5107 [2016] NZHC 1663

THE QUEEN

v

TAWERA WESLEY WICHMAN

Hearing: 21 July 2016

Counsel:

P K Feltham for Crown
P V Paino and S Bolland for Defendant

Sentence:

21 July 2016

SENTENCE OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Wichman is to be sentenced today for causing the death of his daughter, Teegan. Two months ago I indicated to Mr Wichman that if he acknowledged his responsibility for her death by pleading guilty, the sentence I would impose today would be one of three years, 10 months.

[2] There is today understandable dismay in the community about violence to children. On its face a sentence of three years and 10 months may seem to not meet a legitimate community expectation that the Court must play its part in protecting our most vulnerable. This is, however, an unusual case as I will now explain. For the record I note that the sentence represents a starting point of five and a half to six
years’ imprisonment, and then reductions for the matters I will now outline.1

1 The full structure is set out in the sentencing indication.

R v WICHMAN [2016] NZHC 1663 [21 July 2016]

[3] Teegan died on 8 September 2009, so now almost seven years ago. She had been admitted to hospital on 4 March of that year with a brain injury and was under care thereafter. There was a brief period of two months when she was able to be released from hospital but complications from her brain injury required her to return in May 2009, and she remained there until her death just before her first birthday.

[4] It has taken seven years to get to this point today because it has taken that long for Mr Wichman to acknowledge he was the cause of the brain injury. But ultimately he has, and although that period of seven years does him no credit at all,2 what matters today is that he does acknowledge responsibility, and there is no doubt he is genuinely remorseful not only for what happened but for the wider consequences.

[5] Mr Wichman is now 24 years old. He had just turned 17 at the time he shook Teegan thereby causing her brain injury. He and his girlfriend, who was just 16 years of age, were the parents of twins born 15 weeks premature.

[6] The twins spent quite some time in hospital because of their frailty, but also because there were concerns about the ability of the young parents to cope. The parents were given training and eventually they were able to take the twins home to a flat they had been provided with. Initially there was state assistance and a family roster to provide help, but that could not be maintained at the same level. After several weeks it was primarily just the young couple and their baby twins who by then were about five months old.

[7] The parents alternated their…

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 Wichman

Details

AGLC: R v Wichman [2016] NZHC 1663
Case: [2016] NZHC 1663
Decision Date: 21 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Tawera Wesley Wichman, the defendant was sentenced for causing the death of his daughter, Teegan, who died from a brain injury inflicted by the defendant. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. The central legal issue was the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the circumstances of the case and the defendant's acknowledgment of responsibility.

The court had to balance the need to denounce the harm caused to a young child with the unique circumstances surrounding the incident. The defendant, who was 17 at the time of the incident, had pleaded guilty after a lengthy period of denial. The court acknowledged the challenging situation faced by the young parents, including the premature birth of twins and the difficulties associated with caring for them. The court also considered the significant personal and familial consequences of the defendant's actions, including the loss of custody of his children and the impact on his business and relationships.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that while imprisonment was necessary to hold the defendant accountable, the sentence should reflect the mitigating circumstances. The court imposed a sentence of three years and 10 months, which represented a starting point of five and a half to six years, reduced due to the unique aspects of the case. The final order was that the defendant was to serve this term of imprisonment for manslaughter.

Orders