Justice Campbell said while the cause of Harlee-Rose’s death had been determined, the mechanism remains unknown.
“But it is consistent with stomping, kicking, or punching” in such a severe way that it split her pancreas in two, lacerated her liver and would have left her unconscious within minutes.
At her trial, Harlee-Rose’s father, Dylan Berry, said he and Mulford had agreed their relationship would not be exclusive.
He then got another woman pregnant and after Harlee-Rose was born she spent the first 18 months living with her mother.
In August 2021, Harlee-Rose started living with Berry and that meant Mulford, then aged 17, became a primary caregiver.
While the Crown accepted Mulford at times cared well for Harlee-Rose, she also struggled with parenting and resented having to look after someone else’s child.
On November 9, 2021, Mulford strangled Harlee-Rose, injuring the back of her neck and causing the whole of her face to swell and discolour.
There was also bruising to Harlee-Rose’s earlobe consistent with pinching.
Mulford lied to the medical staff, falsely claiming the toddler had fallen from a deck.
Five months later, on April 9, 2022, Mulford killed Harlee-Rose with such force to her abdomen that it ruptured her internal organs.
‘The discounts should have been higher’
At the appeal, her counsel Nick Dutch argued the judge’s seven-year starting point was too high.
He contended the judge’s finding that the girl’s injuries were consistent with Harlee-Rose having been stomped on, kicked, or punched in the abdomen was “not the full picture”.
He said there was evidence from a forensic pathologist the injuries could also have been caused by an adult kneeling on the child’s abdomen, or standing on it for a sustained period.
Jessica Lee Rose Mulford pictured at her sentencing in the High Court at Hamilton in February. Photo / RNZ
Dutch said Justice Campbell shouldn’t have used the facts of the strangulation as an aggravating feature when setting his seven-year starting point, as Lee-Mulford was 17 at the time and therefore a youth.
He also argued her discount for youth should have been 30% and not 15% and said the 5% for her background factors was also inadequate. He instead pushed for 10% to 15% for the latter.
‘Extreme violence against a defenceless toddler’
Addressing the starting point, the Court of Appeal judges accepted the expert evidence, but noted that same witness also said for organs to have been pushed against the backbone, causing the pancreas to split in two, “required a considerable amount of force from the outside”.
“And, in our view, it is the extremity of the violence required to inflict those injuries that mattered for sentencing purposes, not the exact mechanism.
“We are therefore not persuaded that the judge’s statement took the starting point out of range.”
As for the strangulation charge, the Court of Appeal said it was “directly and intimately connected with the more serious offence”.
“It was logically an aggravating feature of the manslaughter, and without it, the later offending could properly have been seen as less culpable.
“As it was, it meant the killing was not a one-off loss of control but rather an escalation in a pattern of violence.
“Furthermore, it shows the killing could even have been avoided had Ms Mulford told the truth about the earlier offending and sought greater support.”
As for a youth discount, Justice Campbell acknowledged “adolescent impulsiveness and lack of parenting skills” were contributing factors, rejecting a Crown submission to the contrary.
He also accepted that, despite Mulford’s continued denial of responsibility, she had good prospects for rehabilitation.
“We accept that another judge may … have given a slightly greater discount on account of age.
“However, equally, we are not persuaded that an allowance of 15% amounts to error warranting appellate intervention in a case involving, as this one did, such extreme violence against a defenceless toddler.”
Looking at the end sentence of five years and seven months’ imprisonment, the Court of Appeal judges weren’t satisfied the sentence was manifestly excessive and dismissed Mulford’s appeal.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.