R v X - [2015] NZHC 1244

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF DEFENDANT PROHIBITED BY ORDER MADE UNDER S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF DEFENDANT'S HUSBAND OR CHILD PROHIBITED BY ORDER MADE UNDER S 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2015-083-529 [2015] NZHC 1244

THE QUEEN

v

X

Hearing: 5 June 2015

Counsel:

L C Rowe for Crown
D Goodlet for Defendant

Ruling:

5 June 2015

RULING (1) OF SIMON FRANCE J (Application for discharge without conviction)

[1] The defendant applies for a discharge without conviction having pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The deceased is the defendant’s only child, a
young boy aged 16 months at the time of his death.

R v X [2015] NZHC 1244 [5 June 2015]

[2] The law provides that a discharge without conviction may be granted whenever the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. Gravity of the offence is a concept that requires analysis of both the circumstances of the offending, and of the offender.1

[3] For reasons that can be briefly stated, a discharge without conviction is the appropriate outcome in this case and will be ordered. I have already made final suppression orders in relation to the identity of the defendant, her husband, and the child.2 I also record that I have concluded it is preferable to deliver a less complete ruling that is able to be published, rather than provide fuller detail which would inevitably require suppression. This ruling therefore reflects a balance between the suppression orders, and meeting the obvious public interest in the matter.3

[4] The defendant is a health professional who undertakes challenging work. The work is of the type that will often occupy your thoughts even though you have ostensibly left work for the day. Such was the case on this occasion. The defendant had been working long hours for many consecutive days. On the morning of her son’s death she left for work at 7.00 am, having only returned home the previous night at half past midnight.

[5] It was a Friday morning and she put her son in the car to drop him off at day care. He was in his approved car seat, facing towards the back of the car.

[6] Tired, distracted by work, and somewhat on auto-pilot as she describes it, the defendant forgot to turn off at the crèche which is very near her work. Instead she drove straight to work, where she parked the car. Oblivious to the fact her son was
still in the car, she went inside and started working.

1      Sentencing Act 2002, ss 106 and 107. The relevant authorities are Z v R [2012] NZCA 599 and
D C v R [2013] NZCA 255.
2      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 200 and 202.
3      For the avoidance of doubt, this ruling and…

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 [2015] NZHC 1244
Case: [2015] NZHC 1244
Decision Date: 5 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v X, the defendant, a health professional, applied for a discharge without conviction after pleading guilty to manslaughter of her 16-month-old son. The High Court of New Zealand, Wanganui Registry, presided over the case, with Simon France J delivering the ruling. The court was tasked with determining whether the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, considering both the circumstances of the offending and the offender.

The court found that the defendant's culpability was towards the lower end, as she had been working long hours, was extremely tired, and had unintentionally forgotten to drop her son off at daycare. The defendant immediately made a statement and pleaded guilty upon being charged. She and her husband had suffered a significant loss, and her character and contributions to society were exemplary. The court also considered the support and forgiveness extended by those most affected by the tragedy.

Simon France J concluded that a discharge without conviction was the appropriate outcome for this case, as the stigma of a conviction would be a heavy burden that did not meaningfully advance the court's role in protecting the young and vulnerable. The Crown did not oppose the application, acknowledging the available evidence that a conviction would do more harm than good.

The court granted the application, discharging the defendant without conviction and allowing her to go free. The decision took into account the suppression orders in place to protect the identities of the defendant, her husband, and the child, as well as the public interest in the matter. The court also noted that the discharge without conviction would not prevent any necessary professional intervention from the relevant professional body.

Orders