Young mother jailed for filling her baby son

Press, 25 February 1987, Page 6

Young mother jailed for filling her baby son

A woman sentenced last August to two years supervision for the “brutal killing” of her baby son was jailed for three years by Mr Justice Holland in the High Court yesterday when she was recalled for sentence on the charge of manslaughter. However, she will probably serve only a part of the term as she is again pregnant and will be released from jail just before the child is born.

Originally charged with murder of her infant son, Josephine Dawn Temara, aged 32, was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter.

Because Temara failed to report and to reside where directed an application was made by the Probation Service to have her resentenced on the original charge. That was granted by Mr Justice Holland after hearing evidence.

When Temara was sentenced on August 22 by Mr Justice Holland for the manslaughter of her child, he ordered her to take medical treatment and counselling under the direction of the probation officer in consultation with the medical authorities at Sunnyside Hospital. That was another condi-

tion of the two years supervision which was not carried out.

When her probation officer told her that he had arranged treatment for her at Sunnyside Hospital she -became hysterical, ran from the room and slammed the door.

During Temara’s trial it was disclosed that the father of the dead child was a Nigerian student at Lincoln College who had left the country. Asked yesterday by Mr Justice Holland if she knew who the father of her expected child was, Temara said that she did and that he had left the country at 7 a.m. that day and would not be back until January. About 11 years ago another child of Temara’s had to be taken from her after police action because she had neglected it.

"I am now appalled that some poor child is about to come into the world because you have got pregnant again. . “If there is ever any possibility of your showing some sign of reform, I urge upon you that you recognise your inadequacy to rear this child and that when it is born

that you make it available to some other family to bring it .up and give it a place in society which you deprived your other two children of,” his Honour said.

Evidence was given during the murder trial that Temara was living alone in a small bedsitter with the child who cried a lot.

At Christmas time, the child died from crushing head injuries. Mr David Saunders appeared for the Crown, and Mr Gerald Nation for Temara. Mr Nation represented her at the murder trial.

Peter Garven, the district probation officer at Greymouth, said that he had prepared the probation report on Temara last August. She reported as directed for a time and then left where she had been directed to reside, and he saw no more of her until he left for Greymouth in December. When he tried to discuss treatment at Sunnyside Hospital Temara would not listen to anything he said. She became hysterical, ran from the room and slammed the door.

In early October

Temara reported and was talkative, and then things began to deteriorate rapidly. She. refused to answer the telephone, and he had no contact with her during November. To Mr Nation, Mr Garven said that he was satisfied with Temara’s reporting until October 23, although it had not been weekly as required. Most of the contact had been by telephone. He had been trying to gain her confidence. When he lost contact with her he became concerned.

In the original order, Temara had been directed to reside at the Kainga Rangatahi Trust, but she had absented herself without permission and had taken to locking herself in her room. She had refused to co-operate with the staff at the trust.

To Mr Saunders, Mr Garven agreed that some irresponsibility had been shown by persons at the trust in relation to Temara.

A woman, who lives on the Main North Road, said that she had taken Temara into her home under a court order after Temara had left the trust.

Temara hail employment as an outworker for Brandt Electronics putting resistors in circuit boards. Then she started staying out all night'without permission, and 'articles, including a fur'coat, went missing from [the house. Temara was | going regularly to pubs; p’ Temara wasjfold to get other accommodation. She did not know where Temara went. To Mr Nation, the woman said that there were arguments in the home as the a result of Temara’s presence. Gaynor Pave&a, a probation officer, said she had been Temara’s supervisor for a year, which finished in January, 1986. She took over Temara after Mr Garven’s- departure. ' <■« it Temara came to the probation office voluntarily on January * 28 this year, and was taken to the Central Police Ration, as there was a warrant on her for breacir hf probation. She told them that she was pregnant. At that stage, ■‘Temara’s conversation wasjvery disjointed and she[ did not consider that She had committed any offence by

leaving the Main North Road address as she had been ordered to go. In evidence. Temara said that after she was evicted she went to the Social Welfare Department to obtain an accommodation grant. She stayed for 2 y 2 weeks at the Bealey Lodge, but found it was too expensive, as she had to pay for her food as well as accommodation. She then went to Antanio Hall, in Riccarton Road, where she had been living ever since. Although she knew that she was supposed to report to the probation office every week, she had decided not to do so until she got settled down. She liked doing the outwork, but found it was boring because she had no-one else to talk to. For a couple of weeks before Christmas she worked in a P.D.L. factory at Waltham, but she had to leave because her health was affected by her pregnancy. The Court had ordered her to take psychiatric treatment, but she was not very interested because most of the patients ended up looking like zombies. Her baby was due about July 22, Temara said. After Mr Justice Holland found that the breaches of probation had been proved, Mr Saunders submitted that a commun-ity-based sentence on the manslaughter charge was not appropriate because of Temara’s failure to cooperate. “What is a matter of real concern because of her treatment of two of her children, was that she was again pregnant,” said Mr Saunders. If Temara was imprisoned until the birth of her child, the authorities could monitor her health and see that she received

proper treatment Because of the policy of the Justice Department, she would be released just before the birth. •

Mr Nation said that the Court had adopted ; .a compassionate approach, when the original sentence was imposed oh the manslaughter charge, by not jailing Temara. It was a tragedy for both her and the community that she had not responded to the help which had been offered to her. She had been punished enough because of the death of her baby whom she loved.

Unfortunately, because of her inadequacies, Temara was a person who would always be at risk. She had not appreciated the need to comply with her terms of supervision and considered that she had done nothing wrong. “Your trial was a sad one," Mr Justice Holland said to Temara. “The circumstances created sympathy for you by everyone present and resulted in a sentence which was capable of being criticised on the grounds that it was too sympathetic to you.” Temara was charged with the murder of her child, and the jury, correctly in his view, brought in a verdict of manslaughter on the basis that she was in such a state that she was incapable of having the necessary intent to commit murder. But, as a result of Temara’s brutal action, her child had died. From comprehensive reports from psychiatrists and psychologists, he had been persuaded that Temara was incapable of coping with society because of a personality disorder that desperately needed treatment.

Because of that, he decided to take a risk and

impose supervision on certain conditions. One was that she stayed with the trust which had undertaken to provide her with a community-care programme, and to which she had consented. Within a week that had failed. A friend offered to take her in and care for her. A job was found for her, but she was unable to accept the discipline that went with working and living with other people and that broke down.

Temara rejected the requirement that she take counselling and needed help from \ psychiatrists. He took it that she claimed she was normal.

Leniency given to Temara by the Court had failed because of her attitude. She had shown that she was not willing to accept the help that so many people > had been trying to give her. It was important that the Court did not punish her breach of probation or because she had got pregnant in the meantime. f

His duty! now, in the light of two breaches of supervision, was to decide the appropriate sentence which he should have imposed in August, 1986, with that knowledge. It was his duty to sentence Temara so that she would be compelled to do what she was told, because she had shown that she was incapable of doing that voluntarily.

The maximum term for manslaughter was life imprisonment but sentences varied considerably. This was manslaughter of a most serious kind, but he would take into account his originally sympathetic view and impose a sentence substantially less than the enormity of Temara’s offending warranted, Mr Justice Holland said.