WARNING: This story contains graphic and sensitive content.
Lauren Anne Dickason has been found guilty of murdering her three young children at their Timaru home.
The jury of eight women and four men reached a majority verdict.
Dickason, 42, stood in the dock calmly as she was convicted of three counts of murder. She was taken out of the courtroom while Justice Cameron Mander discharged the jury. As the jurors left court some broke down weeping.
READ MORE
“This has been a difficult and a gruelling trial,” the judge told them.
“You’ve had to deal with distressing evidence, this trial has likely taken a toll on you personally. You have made a considerable sacrifice.
“Your contribution will remain unknown and largely unsung, you can take considerable pride in the way you have carried out your duties.”
Dickason did not deny killing Liané, 6, and 2-year-old twins Maya and Karla in September 2021.
But she pleaded not guilty to murder, claiming she was severely mentally disturbed at the time and did not know what she was doing was morally wrong - and that she should not be held criminally responsible.
Dickason’s parents sat in the public gallery calmly. Her mother stared at the floor. Members of the public who had been in court for the whole trial comforted Dickason’s parents.
As the hearing ended, Dickason’s lawyers also both burst into tears.
Dickason now faces a life sentence for the murder of each child.
Justice Mander said remanding Dickason in prison would be inappropriate at this time given she was under a compulsory treatment order.
He said he sought expert reports on her mental state and what sentence will be appropriate for her. As Dickason was taken out of court after the trial, the triple murderer shook her head.
Dickason was brought back to the court and told she would be remanded at Hillmorton Hospital until her sentencing date, which will be scheduled later.
Dickason’s parents Malcolm and Wendy Fawkes and the extended family released a statement to media after the verdict.
“Post-partum depression is a terrible thing, as has been shown by what happened to our family on 16 September 2021.
“This was not our daughter, but a debilitating mental illness which resulted in an awful tragedy, the details of which you are by now well aware.”
They said Liané, Karla and Maya were “taken from this life to another as a result of this crippling disease”.
“We would like to thank the people of New Zealand, South Africa and from around the world who have been so understanding of the effects of post- partum depression and mental illness, and who have given us incredible support.
“The New Zealand Government agencies who have interacted with our family have reached out to us in a most generous and compassionate way. We thank the good people of New Zealand for that.”
They said there are “no winners in this tragedy”.
“We would like to encourage families and individuals around the world to be aware of the symptoms of post-partum depression as early as possible, both for yourselves as well as close family and friends around you.
“If treated early and managed correctly, people can experience a full recovery. The person experiencing depression and those closest to them may not be able to recognise the signs or how serious post-partum depression can become.”
Detective Inspector Scott Anderson said in a statement: “Words cannot begin to express the tragic circumstances of this investigation.”
Police extended their deepest sympathies to the families “who will never get to see Liané, Maya, and Karla grow up and live their lives”.
“I would like to acknowledge the Dickason and Fawkes families who have assisted us throughout our investigation,” Anderson said.
“I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of our investigation team.”
Anderson said the investigation had been challenging and complex.
“Right from attending the scene on the night, to the completion of the trial, and through it all our staff have worked diligently with professionalism and empathy to bring this matter to its conclusion.
“Our heartfelt thanks also to the Timaru community and partner agencies who have continued to provide support to the families during this case.”
Just after 3pm today, the jury, who had been deliberating since early afternoon on Monday, indicated it had reached a verdict.
Earlier, the jury indicated they had a question and returned to court soon after.
Justice Mander was told the group had been unable to reach a unanimous verdict and asked for instruction.
He told them that if they could not all agree - he would accept a majority verdict at this stage of deliberations.
In criminal cases, after a jury has deliberated for at least four hours and has not reached a unanimous verdict the judge may instruct them to consider a majority verdict.
A majority verdict is a verdict agreed to by all except one juror and can only occur if the foreperson states in open court there is no probability of the jury reaching a unanimous verdict, as the Juries Act stipulates.
“It is possible for you to deliver a verdict that 11 of you agree on... if only one of your number is in disagreement... then you may proceed to verdict,” he said.
“You should keep trying to reach unanimity until it is not likely for that to happen.”
The eight women and four men - selected on July 17 for this trial - retired at 1.55pm on Monday after Justice Mander gave a lengthy summing up of the case against the accused - and her defence.
Their options on Dickason’s fate were:
Details of Justice Mander’s summary - including direction on how the jury should approach deliberations and what they should consider - are below.
After the jury were sent to begin their formal decision-making process on Monday they immediately requested to re-watch the video of Dickason’s police interview, conducted the day after the alleged murders.
Justice Mander appreciated much of what he had to cover would be repetitive however he was “obliged to ensure” the jury understood the case against Dickason and her defence.
Mander reminded the jury it was up to them, and them alone, as to what evidence they accepted and rejected.
“At the end of the day your assessment of the evidence is for you,” he said.
“It is up to you as to how you assess it... it’s for you to judge.
‘You need to take into account the evidence as a whole... does it make sense, does it ring true?
“You must reach your decision without feelings of prejudice or sympathy… it is inevitable such feelings are engendered in a case involving three little children.
“You must set aside your emotions and go about your task dispassionately. You must judge the defendant without fear or favour - feelings of sympathy for the three children, Mrs Dickason, Mr Dickason and their families… must be put to one side.
“An entirely human response to three little girls being killed is outrage and horror - but you must put those reactions and feelings to one side in order to carry out your task in the analytical way that is required of you; to make sure your verdicts are based on the law and the evidence.”
Justice Mander said the jury must ignore any media reports or comments made to them by anyone outside their number about the case.
He said they must return verdicts based on their assessment of the evidence alone and urged them to “be on your guard” and not allow any irrelevant information or outside influence to colour their thinking.
“Mrs Dickason is innocent until proven guilty,” he said.
“It is for the Crown to prove the charge of murder and to negate the defence of infanticide… there is no onus on the defendant to prove or disprove insanity… or infanticide.
“You must be brought to the point that you can say ‘I am sure the defendant is guilty’... has the Crown proved beyond a responsible doubt that… the children’s deaths were not an act of infanticide.”
Justice Mander said there was no doubt Dickason killed the little girls and that she was very mentally unwell.
The jury must decide whether she was so disturbed that she cannot be held criminally culpable.
The jury’s verdict options were murder, the alternative charge or “partial defence” of infanticide or the full defence of insanity and Justice Mander spent much time talking them through each.
The Crown alleged Dickason murdered the children in a “calculated” way because she was frustrated, angry and resentful of them.
It acknowledges Dickason suffered from sometimes-serious depression, but maintains she knew what she was doing when she killed the girls.
Opening the Crown case on July 1, McRae alleged Dickason was an angry and frustrated woman who was “resentful of how the children stood in the way of her relationship with her husband” and killed them “methodically and purposefully, perhaps even clinically”.
The defence argued Dickason was a severely mentally disturbed woman in the depths of postpartum depression and did not know the act of killing the children was morally wrong at the time of their deaths.
Further, it says she was “in such a dark place” she had decided to kill herself and felt “it was the right thing to do” to “take the girls with her”.
Glen Wright continues to deny the offending and claims the victims conspired against him.