Tania Shailer and David Haerewa appear in the Rotorua High Court today for sentencing for the death of three-year-old Moko Rangitoheriri. Photo / Ben Fraser
Opinion
The Attorney-General's statement raises more questions than it answers. As I understand the situation, Haerewa and Shailer were at home all day with Moko and each must have known what the other was doing. If one witnessed the other stomping sufficiently hard to rupture his bowel and chose not to
intervene, is that not the clearest possible indication that it was because the passive defendant was assisting and encouraging the active one.
Do not forget that this was not a one-off loss of temper but, as Justice Sarah Katz described it, "extreme violence that was prolonged and gratuitous".
Both defendants were equally responsible for their total failure to seek the medical attention that might have saved Moko's life.
Of course, I do not have access to the evidence file but I consider a murder conviction would have been certain against her and very likely against him with the certainty of a manslaughter conviction if Haerewa had been found not guilty of murder.
What of the fact that some of the evidence came from young children? For many years now, the courts have admitted evidence from children by way of close circuit TV and pre-recorded interviews with specially trained interviewers.
