Auckland baby death: Judge orders permanent name suppression for intellectually disabled mum

An intellectually disabled teen arrested after the 2017 death of her newborn made her final appearance at the High Court at Auckland on Thursday. Photo / NZME

An intellectually disabled teen who was accused of manslaughter following the death of her newborn son in Auckland five years ago has been granted a permanent stay of the charge as well as permanent name suppression.

The woman, now 21, was 17 years old in May 2017 when her 2-week-old son was critically injured at a South Auckland boarding house where they both lived. The child was taken to Starship children's hospital and died three days later.

Police at the time described the death as "suspicious" but it would be another year and a half before the mother was charged with manslaughter.

During a hearing today at the High Court at Auckland, the mother sat in the back of the courtroom beside her own mother and the deceased child's father as Justice Grant Powell issued his decision - in as simple words as possible, he said, so she could follow.

"You will not have to come back again to the court," he said. "The evidence is clear you have been reintegrated into the community and are leading a stable life. Making you a compulsory in-patient could only disrupt your sense of stability."

A prior judge had found her unfit to stand trial in 2019 due to a previously undiagnosed intellectual disability which prevented her from properly understanding the court process. In 2020, in a Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act hearing triggered by the unfit to stand trial ruling, Justice Powell ruled that based on the "balance of probabilities" she had caused the baby's death.

The next step - which started last June and finished today, a lengthy delay that was blamed in part on the Covid-19 pandemic - was to determine if she should be indefinitely sent to a lockdown mental health facility.

Defence lawyer John Munro noted that his client had made "significant gains in her personal life" in the nine months since her last court appearance. The gains include having obtained a full-time job and having been taught by a support worker to cook for herself.

"Clearly, it's working," Munro said of her involvement since last year with disability support service Taikura Trust, adding that his client now hopes to participate in parenting programmes so that she might eventually be reunited with her other children. "To go from post what happened with [the newborn] to now is a significant step.

"The court can be comfortable now to move to the next step of full release knowing the Trust is there."

Justice Powell agreed, pointing to reports from three clinical psychologists who assessed the mother to be a low risk of reoffending. He also agreed with Munro that what occurred in 2017 appeared to be "a perfect storm" of stressors that included her young age, her then-undiagnosed disability and fatigue after giving birth prematurely and being released from the hospital after only two days.

However, the judge noted, publishing her name could cause her setbacks.

There's a high threshold to meet for permanent name suppression, and under normal circumstances the case might not merit it, he said. But that doesn't take into account her intellectual disability, which has left her without a "certain amount of resilience" that others accused of crimes would normally have, the judge added.

He cited a report from psychologist Sabine VIisser stating the woman "does not have the skills to deal with the media or the wider public" and noting that she "has a history of being bullied previously and has found that very difficult".

Crown prosecutor Thomas Riley pointed out that the report was made prior to the past nine months, when the woman started receiving increased support and counselling. The new support structure would perhaps help her to cope if her name was published, he suggested.

But Justice Powell indicated he wasn't interested in risking it.

"We really don't know whether she can cope with those things," the judge said. "It's about the disability and the effect that publication might have ... as compared to someone who does not have that disability."

"... In my view, anything that risks the stability or support ... will amount to extreme hardship."