Killer’s appeal for less jail time fails

A man who killed his two-year-old daughter will serve out his prison term after an appeal against his ‘‘manifestly excessive’’ sentence was dismissed.

In February Phillip Murray Kinraid was sentenced to four years and three months in jail for the 2015 manslaughter of his daughter Esme Claire Kinraid. Esme died at the family’s home in Hawera, South Taranaki, on June 26, 2015 after Kinraid held her down with enough force to stop her from getting up as he tried to settle her for bed. He held her face down into a pillow and then left the room, believing she was OK.

However, when he checked on her about 11pm, Esme was not breathing or moving and her face was discoloured. Attempts to resuscitate her were unsuccessful. In March, Kinraid’s lawyers lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the length of his sentence. Kinraid appealed on the grounds that the sentence was ‘‘manifestly excessive,’’ saying the judge’s starting point for it was too high and that he had not been given enough of a time discount for personal mitigating factors.

His appeal against the starting point of his sentence claimed that because his actions against Esme had not been inherently violent not like a case where a parent shakes or hits a child - the court should have started with a sentence of three to four years imprisonment.

But in a judgment released on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal dismissed Kinraid’s appeal against his sentence, finding there was nothing wrong with the High Court judge’s decisions. In the court’s reasoning, given by Justice Clifford, they considered a similar case where a child had been suffocated and decided the starting point of six and a half year’s prison that had been given in the High Court was appropriate. ‘‘Mr Kinraid’s actions were deliberate. The victim was his child. The victim was defenceless. Mr Kinraid held her down for up to 10 minutes,’’ the judgement read. Kinraid also argued that because he was a first time offender and had cooperated with police, he deserved a shorter sentence than the one he had been given. The Court of Appeal found the 35 per cent sentence discount - which amounted to 10 months - he had been given for those mitigating factors was sufficient. An appeal on a suppression issue around the case is still in contention.