Legal Research
Cases
Woodcock v R

Woodcock v R

Case [2010] NZCA 489 28 October 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA733/2009
[2010] NZCA 489
BETWEENJOSHUA CHRIS WOODCOCK

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:28 September 2010

Court:Chambers, Arnold and Harrison JJ
Counsel:W C Pyke and J P Temm for Appellant

M F Laracy and H R B Stallard for Respondent

Judgment:28 October 2010 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
___________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Harrison J)
Introduction
[1]        Joshua Woodcock appeals against his conviction following trial by a jury in the High Court at Rotorua in September 2009 on charges of manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault of a child and wilful neglect. Mr Woodcock also appeals against his sentence of 12 years imprisonment.[1]
[1]     R v Woodcock HC Rotorua CRI 2008-019-000783, 30 October 2009.
[2]        Mr Woodcock’s notice of appeal raised a number of challenges to his conviction. However, in this Court his counsel, Mr Pyke, limited oral argument to the single ground of whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury on its power to return majority verdicts. Mr Pyke did not address argument on the remaining grounds of appeal and we are satisfied they are without merit.
[3]        Mr Woodcock maintains his appeal against sentence, which we will address separately.
Facts
[4]        Mr Woodcock was the father of Sarah Woodcock-Haddock. She died in March 2005 when she was a little over three months old. Her death was caused by a brain haemorrhage resulting from a four centimetre skull fracture. The likely originating cause was her head’s sudden impact with a board or padded area such as carpet; and the likely site of impact was at the back of the head somewhere behind the ear.
[5]        According to a pathologist called by the prosecution, very considerable force is needed to fracture the skull of a young child. The fatal injury, which could not have been accidental, was inflicted about 12 hours before Sarah died. It was common ground at trial that the perpetrator could only have been her father or her mother, Ms Jaymie Haddock. The couple were then living together in a rental property in Putaruru with their two older sons.
[6]        A post-mortem conducted following Sarah’s death disclosed the existence of other substantial injuries. She had suffered eight rib fractures and a haemorrhage in her left chest wall, most likely caused by an adult leaning on her chest with the knee slipping downwards and tearing tissue under the skin. She had suffered a tear to the upper fremulum in her mouth about four to seven days before death. She presented with bruises to her jaw and neck, most likely caused by applying force from fingers or knuckles within two to five days before death. Finally, within that same period, she had suffered four bruises to her chest and her thymus gland, an organ positioned in the upper chest behind the sternum. The level of force required to cause these bruises was the same…

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 Woodcock v R

Details

AGLC: Woodcock v R [2010] NZCA 489
Case: [2010] NZCA 489
Decision Date: 28 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Chris Woodcock appeals against his conviction and sentence for manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, assault of a child, and wilful neglect. The appeal focuses on whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the power to return majority verdicts. The Court found that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury on majority verdicts, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the Court determined that a starting point of ten years imprisonment for manslaughter was appropriate, considering the gravity of the crime and the aggravating features of the case. The Court upheld the 12-year sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders