Warning: This story contains medical evidence that may be distressing for some readers. 

For the past week-and-a-half, Adrian Clancy has sat quietly behind his lawyer as the Crown accused him of killing his former partner’s toddler, Sadie-Leigh Gardner. 

But late yesterday, just 20 minutes after a jury went off to determine his fate, the 45-year-old was in tears as the words “not guilty” were read out by the foreman in the High Court at Rotorua. 

It’s the second time in three years that Clancy has been tried for the 17-month-old’s murder. The first time he was found guilty, but his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal and a retrial ordered. 

This time the defence took a different approach and squarely pointed the blame at the Tauranga toddler’s mother. 

Sadie-Leigh was just 17 months old when someone inflicted blunt force trauma to her head, causing a “non-survivable” brain injury that involved brain bleeds, swelling, and loss of oxygen to her brain. 

During an emotional and often tense retrial, the jury were tasked with deciding if they could be sure it was Clancy, and not the toddler’s mother, who had caused the toddler’s “catastrophic” head injuries in 2019. 

The Crown said that person could only have been Clancy. 

In his closing address earlier yesterday, Crown Prosecutor Richard Jenson told the jury they could be sure Sadie-Leigh was well and safe at the time her mother, who has name suppression, left for a beauty appointment. 

• 'Oh my god:' Neighbour’s shock at seeing toddler gasping for breath in alleged killer's arms
• Toddler was 'floppy and barely breathing' in her alleged killer's arms

Jenson stepped the jury through a timeline of what happened that day, leading up to the point Clancy arrived at the neighbouring flat with the floppy and barely breathing toddler in his arms. 

The defence pointed the finger at the toddler’s mother, suggesting she was a stressed out, angry, and frustrated mother who, on that day, had reached “breaking point”. 

However, the Crown said even though the mother clearly struggled with aspects of her parenting, there had been no evidence that was at play that day. 

The evidence showed on March 27 she was actively caring for her child who was suffering from a cold - giving her Pamol, booking a doctor’s appointment for the next day, and sourcing cough medicine from her neighbour. 

She’d also not had the opportunity to inflict the forceful and catastrophic head injuries, Jenson said. 

The jury retired to consider its verdict late on Wednesday afternoon, and just 20 minutes later indicated they had reached a unanimous verdict. 

Grizzly, a bit feverish, but otherwise well 

The Crown’s timeline - based on evidence from the mother, neighbour Shantelle Flynn, defendant Adrian Clancy, and CCTV footage - was that Sadie-Leigh and her mother arrived home to where Clancy was gambling on his phone around 2.07 pm. 

Sadie-Leigh was taken inside by Flynn, and was grizzling, a bit feverish, but otherwise well. Flynn left, and sometime after that Clancy and the mother decided Sadie-Leigh should have a nap. 

The defence had told the jury they must be sure the toddler's mother hadn't caused the head injury. 

Clancy put her to bed, as he often did, but at some point the toddler woke herself up coughing. Flynn brought over some Irish Moss cough medicine, drew up a syringe, and gave it to the mother, who went into the room and gave it to the toddler. 

The mother said Sadie-Leigh was a bit difficult so she had to hold her head still, and a bit of medicine was spat out. She called for Clancy who brought in some wipes, and Flynn went home after swilling out the medicine bottle cap. 

Flynn told the court she heard nothing of note while the mother was in Sadie-Leigh’s bedroom. There was a grizzly cry when the mother first went in, which she took as the toddler not being thrilled about the taste of the Irish Moss, but she’d heard nothing further, and left the unit. 

The mother said Sadie-Leigh soon woke again, while she was having a vape, so she asked Clancy to resettle her. 

The defence took issue with this point, claiming the mother was lying and Clancy only put Sadie-Leigh to bed once. 

The mother said she then asked Clancy if he wanted anything from the dairy, went over to Flynn’s, and took her little boy with her to get a drink. 

She came home, checked on Sadie-Leigh who she says was asleep, and left for an appointment to get eyelash extensions. 

The defence says the injuries to Sadie-Leigh must have been caused when she went in to give the Irish Moss, with lawyer Rob Stevens suggesting in his closing earlier today that the toddler’s fussiness over the medicine was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for the tired mother. 

A point of contention, both in terms of when it happened in the sequence of events and what it told the jury about the mother’s state of mind, was a visit to the dairy by the mother and Flynn’s toddler. 

The Crown said the visit must have happened after the defence alleged the mother had inflicted the injuries. 

“If you’ve just lost it with your own child, to the extent you’ve inflicted physical harm to a child, would you want to be around another child, supervising another child, across the road?” 

But the defence suggested the dairy trip could have happened before the Irish Moss. 

Stevens repeatedly called into question the mother’s reliability and credibility, owing to dishonesty convictions from her late teens. 

What Clancy says happened 

Clancy told police that after Sadie-Leigh’s mother had left for her appointment, he heard the toddler having a coughing fit before she went quiet. 

He was busy placing bets on the TAB app and left her for five minutes before going in to check on her. 

When he went in he says she was in her cot, struggling to breathe, and he rushed her next door to get help. 

The Crown challenged his version of events saying they didn’t make sense - for her to be in that state at that point, she would have had to be conscious and very upset before that. That was despite several experts suggesting it was likely she would have been unconscious immediately, due to the severity of the injury. 

The timeframe was much more consistent the Crown alleged with Clancy having dealt the blow shortly before he panicked and took the toddler next door. 

Clancy’s lawyer countered that by saying it was possible the toddler was unconscious, and then regained consciousness, and by the time he went in to her she was “moribund”, or in layman’s terms, dying. He said that was also consistent with expert evidence. 

Adrian Clancy during his retrial in the High Court at Rotorua. Photo / Hannah Barlett 

Wiping away blood 

Another element that both the Crown and defence homed in on during the trial, albeit drawing different conclusions, was Clancy’s wiping away of blood around Sadie-Leigh’s mouth during CPR efforts at Flynn’s house. 

The defence said he was doing what any person would do when they saw blood where someone was attempting to give mouth-to-mouth - wipe it away. 

However, the Crown claimed the action, as well as Clancy’s failure to mention the presence of blood to the paramedics, was suspicious, and suggested he was trying to remove evidence of her injuries being the result of violence. 

He’d repeatedly said at the time that he thought Sadie-Leigh was having an asthma attack, but Jenson said it had been obvious to everyone, including Flynn and another neighbour, that it was not asthma. 

However, Stevens said Clancy had never seen Sadie-Leigh have an asthma attack, so he could not be expected to know if it was asthma or not. 

Character evidence 

The defence called witnesses who shared their views and concerns about the mother’s parenting of Sadie-Leigh. 

Several witnesses described hearing her getting angry and frustrated in the afternoons, and calling the little girl names. 

Stevens also referred to messages the mother had sent to the defendant about her own concerns about her parenting - that she was struggling as a solo parent and was worried about her tendency to raise her voice and “lose her s***”. 

Clancy didn’t give evidence, but witnesses called by his lawyer described him as calm and patient, and good with children. 

However, the Crown says there was evidence that he used gambling as a coping strategy, and records show he had placed a lot of online bets that day. 

There was also evidence that when he became stressed and overwhelmed, he would leave a situation. 

In a previous relationship, when his former partner’s family came around and he found it a bit “irritating”, his ex said he would head off to Mount Maunganui or out for a walk. 

There was evidence Clancy had had enough of living in the small flat with Sadie-Leigh’s mother, and had already made plans to move out. 

He was left in sole charge at the last minute that afternoon, and the Crown said his usual coping strategies of gambling - with records showing he was losing money that day - and leaving, weren’t available. 

The Crown told the jury it was impossible to know what triggered him, but he was the only person who could have inflicted the injuries in the timeframe and, despite the evidence of his previous calm manner, “there’s a first time for everything”. 

But, the jurors didn’t buy that argument, with their verdict indicating they believed there was “reasonable doubt” over who caused Sadie-Leigh’s fatal injuries. 

Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.