Wellington father jailed for fracturing baby son's leg, arms, ribs and skull

NZ Herald

20-05-2025

Today in the Wellington District Court, Judge Noel Sainsbury said it was clear the injuries were non-accidental and were caused by blunt force trauma, shaking or bending the boy, who at that stage wasn't even 4 months old.
The judge said injuries must have occurred over the previous three and a half months when the man was alone, caring for his son.
Despite the injury to the skull, there had been no long-term brain damage, although Judge Sainsbury said it was probably more luck than anything else.
'It was a breach of trust, he was totally at your mercy,' the judge told the man during his sentencing.
A young dad who 'should have asked for help'
The man's lawyer Letizea Ord said her client was 22 years old when his son was born in September 2022. A sad aspect of this case was that the man was looking forward to being a father and wanted to be a good one.
But left to care for the baby, she said he was unable to accept he wasn't coping and, in hindsight, should have asked for help.
She said her client had pleaded guilty and taken responsibility for his actions and was 'heartbroken' at the injuries he had caused his son.
But he had opened up to the report writer about the reasons for his loss of control and was motivated to undertake the programmes probation had suggested, including anger management and alcohol and drug treatment.
It was how to engage in those courses that presented Judge Sainsbury with a problem.
Ord argued that if the court took into account the man's youth, remorse, guilty plea, willingness to undertake programmes, and time spent on electronically monitored bail and in custody, the judge could reduce the sentence to below two years' jail.
In doing so, the man would be eligible for home detention and able to undertake the recommended programmes, which he hadn't been able to access while in custody, she said.
Yet if he received a longer prison sentence, by the time the Parole Board considered his release, he would be close to the end of his penalty and it would be unable to impose any release conditions.
Unread letters of apology
Crown prosecutor Rushika De Silva opposed any community-based sentence.
She said while the man had written apology letters, several family members had refused to read them.
And although he'd indicated a willingness to undertake restorative justice, that hadn't happened.
The Crown submitted that a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was appropriate.
In handing down his sentence, Judge Sainsbury acknowledged the man had spent 19 months in jail, more time than if he had been sentenced for the charges he had faced.
And as a sentenced prisoner, he was eligible for parole after serving a third of his sentence.
'I can't change the Sentencing or the Parole Act,' he said.
Judge Sainsbury also said the man was remanded in custody because he hadn't always complied with his bail conditions.
But the judge said he couldn't justify manipulating the sentence to one of home detention.
On two charges of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard for safety, the man was jailed for 26 months, with the judge directing that it was for the Parole Board to set the man's release conditions.
Judge Sainsbury granted the man interim name suppression but deferred a decision on permanent suppression until a hearing at a later date.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.