R v Yu - [2015] NZHC 89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-042-1362 [2015] NZHC 89

THE QUEEN

v

GUANZHI YU

Counsel:
J M Webber with A Mills for Crown

B Daniell-Smith with M Vesty for Defendant

Sentence:

5 February 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF THE HON JUSTICE KÓS

[1] Mrs Yu, you have been found guilty of the manslaughter of your husband,1

and the attempted murder of your daughter-in-law.2

[2] On any view, what has happened here is deeply tragic. It has destroyed a family’s hopes of happiness in a new country. In particular, your actions have ended the life of the person you most loved, and on whom any chance of your own happiness depended.

What you did

[3] You are a retired chemistry teacher. You and your husband Shubai Gao moved to New Zealand from China in 2012. You lived with your son and daughter- in-law in St Ann Place in Nelson, together with your grandchildren: a toddler and a
baby. You and your husband worked at your son’s pizza shop and helped look after

1 Section 171.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.

R v YU [2015] NZHC 89 [5 February 2015]

the grandchildren. You were isolated, with few friends. You do not speak English at all. You depended on your husband to get by.

[4] You have unfortunately a history of mental illness. As a result you were hospitalised in China in 2004-05. It was accepted by the Crown that at the time of your offending you were mentally disordered, and suffering a disease of the mind. It was, and remains, a major depressive disorder. Professor Melsopp, Dr Miller and Dr Galvin all gave evidence to that effect. But only Dr Galvin considered you reached the higher threshold of insanity as a matter of law. The jury rejected your defence of insanity.

[5] Your marriage was generally a happy one. Your son’s marriage was not. You did not like your daughter-in-law. Your husband however did like her.

[6] In January 2013 your son sent your daughter-in-law back to China. You were left to look after your grandchildren. You carried on working at the pizza shop at the same time. You became tired and irritable. You lost weight. Your behaviour became odd. A family friend suggested to your son that you were “not right in the head”. He attempted to take you to a doctor. You refused to go.

[7] Six weeks later your daughter-in-law returned. Your husband had been instrumental in getting her to come back. You were very unhappy about her return. You made inquiries about arranging a divorce for your son. You searched for a new wife for him on an internet dating service.

[8] Subsequently it was established that the day before the incident at St Ann Place, on 2 March 2013, you posted an entry in the diary page of a Chinese social media website. It was entitled “My last words to my son and friends”. You said you were exhausted and that your daughter-in-law…

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 Yu

Details

AGLC: R v Yu [2015] NZHC 89
Case: [2015] NZHC 89
Decision Date: 5 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the case of R v Yu involved the sentencing of Guanzhi Yu for the manslaughter of her husband and the attempted murder of her daughter-in-law. The court had to determine the appropriate starting point for the sentence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The Crown accepted that concurrent sentencing was appropriate, and the court agreed that the appropriate starting point for each offence was around the same. The court identified a starting point of between five and ten years for both offences, and ultimately settled on a starting point of nine years' imprisonment, considering the totality of the offending.

The court found several aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon, the serious violence used, the vulnerability of the victims, and the premeditation of the attack on the daughter-in-law. There were no mitigating factors relating to the offending, but there were significant mitigating factors relating to the offender, such as her previous good character, remorse, and the impact of her mental disorder at the time of the offence. Considering all these factors, the court decided on a term of imprisonment of five years and five months.

The major issue before the court was whether Yu should serve her sentence in a hospital as a special patient. The court found that this was an appropriate case for such an order, as Yu's mental state was likely to deteriorate in prison, and it would be difficult for her to adapt to the prison environment. The court ordered that Yu be detained in a suitable hospital as a special patient, under section 34(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

In conclusion, Guanzhi Yu was sentenced to five years and five months' imprisonment on each conviction, to be served concurrently. The court also ordered that she be detained in a suitable hospital as a special patient, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

Orders