R v X - [2016] NZHC 840

ORDER FOR PERMANENT SUPPRESSION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT.
NOTE: PUBLICTION OF NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 204(1)(A) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
SENTENCING NOTES MAY BE PUBLISHED IN THIS FORM.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI 2015-021-0533 [2016] NZHC 840

THE QUEEN

v

X

Hearing: 29 April 2016

Counsel:

J Marinovich for Crown
K Pascoe for Defendant

Judgment:

29 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth
Nicholsons, New Plymouth

R v X [2016] NZHC 840 [29 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] Ms X, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to three charges of attempted murder. Those pleas were entered on 15 February 2016, shortly after I gave a sentencing indication, on your application.

[2] After passing sentence, I will deal separately with your application for permanent name suppression.

[3] Before I start dealing with sentencing, there is one issue with which I must deal. Under what is known as the “Three Strikes” regime you have committed an offence that qualifies for a warning. I now give you the warning as required.

[4] Should you be convicted of a second such offence you would be required to serve the full sentence imposed by the Court without the prospect of parole. If you were convicted of a third such offence you would be sentenced to a maximum penalty for that offence and again you would not be able to get parole. You will receive written material shortly in which a full list of the offences that qualify as Three Strikes’ offences will be set out, including some special rules around the crime of murder.

Facts

[5] All three charges of attempted murder arise out of events that unfolded on

28 July 2015. The circumstances in which the offending occurred are most tragic. Nevertheless, given the nature of the sentence I will be imposing today, I must outline the facts in a manner that can be published, so that the media and the public understand why I am imposing a merciful sentence for one of the gravest of crimes.

[6] At the relevant time, you were living in the central North Island. It is clear that, for some time, you had been suffering from major depressive episodes. There were difficulties in your marriage. You had given birth to your youngest child only months beforehand. Events had conspired to such a degree that you genuinely believed the only way in which you and your children could be kept safe was for you

to take your own life and those of your children. The charges of attempted murder involve your three children, one of whom was under one year of age.

[7] In the time leading up to the offending, you and your former husband had argued about custody of the children. Your genuine belief that death was the only way to relieve you and your children from what lay ahead was based on a…

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 X

Details

AGLC: R v X [2016] NZHC 840
Case: [2016] NZHC 840
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Ms X was convicted of three charges of attempted murder and was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the charges, and to consider whether her name and identifying particulars should be permanently suppressed. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, particularly in light of the defendant's mental health issues.

The court considered the facts of the case, which involved the defendant's attempt to commit suicide and murder her three children, who were under the age of one, due to her severe mental health issues and the stress caused by her marital problems. The court acknowledged the gravity of the crime but also recognised the defendant's genuine remorse, diminished responsibility due to her psychiatric illness, and the early guilty pleas she had entered. The court found that a sentence of imprisonment was not needed to respond to this particular offending and instead opted for a sentence of intensive supervision, designed to reduce the likelihood of further offending through rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The court imposed a sentence of two years' intensive supervision on standard terms and special conditions relating to psychiatric care, counselling, and attendance at relevant programs directed by a probation officer. The court also granted a permanent order suppressing the defendant's name and identifying particulars, as well as those of her children, to prevent any further identification or harm to them.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Ms X to two years of intensive supervision, taking into account her mental health issues and the need for rehabilitation, while also ensuring the protection of her identity and that of her children. The court's decision aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the need for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders