Hearing:	27 November 2017
Court:	Kós P, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	P T Eastwood for B F Taylor R B Keam for C M Taylor K H Maxwell for L R Taylor K S Grau and M L Wong for Respondent
Judgment:	14 December 2017 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

Ena Dung, a woman of 76 years, died as the result of the most dreadful neglect. At the time of her death she boarded with her daughter, the appellant Cindy Taylor, and the other appellants, Luana and Brian Taylor.[1] Cindy Taylor was directly responsible for Ms Dung’s care.
[1]Luana and Brian Taylor are a married couple. Cindy Taylor is not a blood relative but at some point adopted their surname by deed poll.
The circumstances in which Ms Dung died were described in Wylie J’s sentencing notes:[2]
[2]R v Taylor [2016] NZHC 2846.
[12]      On 16 January 2015, shortly after 9.00pm, a 111 call was made … to the emergency services. … [T]he operator [was told] Ms Dung had passed away. Ambulance officers attended and Ms Dung’s body was discovered.
[13]      The ambulance officers described an extremely strong smell of urine and ammonia when they entered the house which got worse as they approached Ms Dung’s bedroom. They found Ms Dung lying on a green plastic sheet, in her own urine and faeces. She was described as looking like a “scarecrow”. She had skin tears on her arms. She was emaciated, and naked from the waist down. When a police officer used scissors to remove her top, it was noted her clothing had almost fused to her skin through the open sores on her upper body. She had multiple pressure sores and at least one necrotic ulcer on the lower part of her body. There was evidence of arthropod activity along both of her legs.
[14]      The photographs of Ms Dung’s body taken at the time, which were produced in evidence at the trial, were harrowing. The police were notified due to the state in which the body was found.
[15]      Later post mortem examination revealed that, at some point, at least weeks but perhaps months earlier, Ms Dung had suffered 14 fractures to her ribs and sternum. The cause of those injuries was not clarified at trial and none of [the appellants] were charged with causing them. The medical evidence was that they may have occurred as a result of multiple falls. It was clear that the injuries would have been extremely painful for Ms Dung. They interfered with her breathing. They effectively prevented her from moving. She needed significant assistance but little or no help was given…

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 Taylor v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v The Queen [2017] NZCA 574
Case: [2017] NZCA 574
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brian, Cindy and Luana Taylor appeal their sentences. Brian and Luana Taylor were found guilty of failing to protect a vulnerable adult, knowing that she was at risk of death or grievous bodily harm as a result of Cindy Taylor's omission to care for her. Cindy Taylor was found guilty of manslaughter by failing to provide Ena Dung with the necessaries of life. They all appeal their sentences. The Court of Appeal dismisses all appeals against sentence. In relation to Cindy Taylor's sentence, the Court found the starting point of 12 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The Court found the Judge was correct to deny Cindy Taylor a discount for good character on the manslaughter charge. In relation to Luana and Brian Taylor, the Court found their sentences were not manifestly excessive.

Orders