escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Joshua Coe

Joshua Alexander Coe

Alias

.

Offences

Killed his 6 month old daughter in December 1991
Caused grevious bodily harm "with reckless disregard" (x3) to his 8 month old daughter in 1995
Note that there is another Joshua Coe who is not the same person

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1973

Current Location

unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to seven years in August 1997
Sentenced to just seventeen months for manslaughter

Background
Waikato Times story, August 11th 1997
Five years ago Joshua Coe of Hamilton killed his eldest baby by shaking her. Last year, he almost killed his youngest in exactly the same way. Today, at Hamilton District Court, Judge James Rota jailed Coe, 24, for seven years on three charges of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard. Coe, who had pleaded guilty, stood in the dock with tears dripping from his nose. His partner, Suzanne Dunn, who continued to support him, cried with Coe's mother in the gallery. been."

Crown prosecutor Ross Douch said: "This is absolutely unforgiveable conduct. If the death of one child wasn't enough, the continued hospital admission of the second should have. He described the case as "unprecedented" as no other cases of baby-shaking could be found where the offender had previously killed a child by the same act.

Defence counsel Herman Roose said his client had shown nothing but genuine contrition. His behaviour could also be understood in the light of his background. "Violence begets violence," he said.

Mr Douch told the court Coe's partner returned from shopping in December 1991 to find Coe mopping the face of her daughter, Jessica, 6 months old. Jessica died three days later of head injuries received from being shaken vigorously. Coe was jailed for 17 months on a charge of manslaughter. He and Ms Dunn had two more children after he was released -- Jasmine and Hayley.

Hayley was admitted to Waikato Hospital on December 19, 1995, and January 16 and March 25, 1996. On each occasion Ms Dunn had left Coe to look after the child. After the third hospital admission, Social Welfare put Hayley into her grandmother's care.

Hospital x-rays from March, 1996, showed Hayley, then 8 months old, had a spiral fracture of the left thigh bone, four fractured ribs, a skull fracture, and fractured left shin bone and both collar bones. A CT scan at the same time showed brain haemorrhaging had occurred three weeks earlier. "When compared with x-rays taken on earlier occasions it revealed that Hayley had been subjected to physical injury over a sustained period of time." Mr Douch said when a baby was shaken, the brain would slosh inside the skull, bruising it, and tearing the vessels that bridged the skull and brain.

In babies Hayley's age, fractures of the ribs and collar bones would be caused by a direct blow or direct pressure, Mr Douch said. Mr Roose said there was hope because Hayley would probably go on to lead a normal childhood and grow to be an adult. He said Coe had limited parenting skills and had tried to settle, comfort and reassure Hayley without success. "He could not handle the pressure."

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top