The King v G - [2024] NZHC 1201

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-044-3505

[2024] NZHC 1201

THE KING

v

G

Hearing: 15 May 2024

Appearances:

R McCoubrey and I Archibald for the Crown

A Roebeck on instructions from M Kan for the Defendant

Sentencing:

15 May 2024

(REDACTED) SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland M Kan, Auckland
A Roebeck, Auckland

R v G [2024] NZHC 1201 [15 May 2024]

Introduction

[1] Ms G, you appear before me for having pleaded guilty to the charge of infanticide of your 15 week old daughter, J.

[2] You were originally charged with murder, but following psychiatric reports from three psychiatrists, it became common ground that infanticide rather than murder was the appropriate charge. That is because it was apparent from the reports that you were suffering a severe depressive episode following (and caused by) J’s birth.

[3] The offence of infanticide carries a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment.1 I say at the outset I will not be sentencing you to imprisonment.

[4] Before I begin my sentencing decision I acknowledge the members of J’s family who are, of course, your family as well, who are present in Court.

The offending

[5] In entering your guilty plea, you accepted the contents of the summary of facts. Although you are familiar with the summary of facts it is necessary for me to summarise those facts in this decision.

[6] On 15 November 2022, J was 15 weeks old. She lived with you, your husband and another family member. That morning, you conducted a number of internet searches on the financial effect of your death on your family. Not long after those searches and after the other two other adults in the household left for work, when you were alone with J, you tragically killed her by drowning her.

[7] You then sent messages of love to your husband, your family, and your community group, before attempting to kill yourself. Just before noon, you called 111. You told the operator that you had poisoned yourself intentionally with a household drain cleaner. You then said “I killed my daughter.” When emergency services arrived, you were slumped in the shower next to J’s unresponsive body. She was pronounced dead. You told the paramedic that you had drowned her. A note in your

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 178.

handwriting and dated 15 November 2022 was found at the scene which detailed the unexpected difficulties of motherhood including feelings of isolation and loss of independence and which advised your husband to seek the advice of a Public Trust lawyer.

Victim impact statement

[8] The Court has received victim impact statements from your husband and your cousin.

[9] It is clear that J was a much-loved baby girl. The impact of her death on your cousin, who is very…

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 The King v G

Details

AGLC: The King v G [2024] NZHC 1201
Case: [2024] NZHC 1201
Decision Date: 15 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v G involves a defendant, Ms G, who pleaded guilty to the charge of infanticide in relation to the death of her 15-week-old daughter, J. The case was heard and sentenced by Gordon J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, on 15 May 2024. Ms G originally faced a charge of murder, but psychiatric reports concluded that she was suffering from severe depression following the birth of her daughter, leading to the charge being amended to infanticide. The legal issues before the court included whether to impose a discharge without conviction and whether to grant permanent name suppression for the defendant.

The court was required to decide whether the consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence and whether a discharge without conviction was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to determine whether permanent name suppression was warranted based on the potential for extreme hardship or endangering the defendant's safety.

Gordon J found that while there was a risk of suicide if Ms G's name and identifying details were published, the court balanced this against the principle of open justice. The court decided to impose permanent name suppression with an exception for the Nursing Council of New Zealand and any professional conduct committee, which could be notified of the conviction. Regarding the discharge without conviction, the court found insufficient evidence to support the claim that a conviction would significantly impact Ms G's mental health or risk of suicide. The court also determined that the consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. Finally, the court sentenced Ms G to two years of intensive supervision with special conditions, including psychiatric and psychological treatment and informing the probation officer if she becomes pregnant.

Orders