R v AA (a pseudonym) - [2024] NSWSC 409

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AA (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 409
Hearing dates: 28 March 2024
Date of orders: 18 April 2024
Decision date: 18 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Huggett J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted.
(2) For the offence of murder, I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years and 3 months commencing on 1 March 2022 and expiring on 31 May 2034 with a non-parole period of 8 years expiring on 28 February 2030.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the offender is advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of murder of which she has been convicted. Her legal representatives are directed to advise her of the implications of those matters to her.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – murder – young mother suffocated her 11-month-old daughter – early plea of guilty – facilitated the administration of justice – mental impairment and objective seriousness – mental impairment and moral culpability – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
DS v R; DM v R (2022) NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
AA (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hay (Crown)
R Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00059740
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) a non-publication order extends beyond the deceased’s name to the names of all relatives of the deceased and to the addresses mentioned in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

In August 2020, the offender gave birth to a baby daughter, Baby A. She was a very happy baby and members of her immediate and extended family enjoyed spending time with her and watching her grow and her personality develop. It is clear that she was deeply loved and was a source of immense pride and joy.
On 19 July 2021, the offender smothered Baby A. Intervention by paramedics resulted in a return of spontaneous circulation and Baby A was admitted to paediatric intensive care. An assessment on the morning of 20 July 2021 confirmed that Baby A was not breathing spontaneously and an absence of cranial nerve functioning. There was no change to her condition when she was assessed on 21 July 2021 and withdrawal of intensive care was recommended. That recommendation was accepted by the offender and Baby A’s father (“the father”). Baby A was disconnected from a ventilator on 21 July 2021 and passed away a few minutes later. She was 11 months old at the time of her death.
The offender is now to be sentenced for the murder of her daughter. Murder is an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It carries a maximum penalty…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v AA (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: R v AA (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 409
Case: [2024] NSWSC 409
Decision Date: 18 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v AA (a pseudonym) involved a young mother who had been convicted of murder for the death of her 11-month-old daughter. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the offence. The defendant had a history of mental impairment, which was a significant factor in the case. The High Court was tasked with balancing the defendant's mental impairment against the objective seriousness of the crime, as well as considering the defendant's moral culpability and any special circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's mental impairment should be considered a mitigating factor in her sentencing, and if so, to what extent. The court was also required to weigh the objective seriousness of the crime against the defendant's level of moral culpability, taking into account any special circumstances that may have been relevant. The court had to ensure that the sentence it imposed was proportionate to the crime, while also considering the unique circumstances of the defendant.

In delivering its judgment, the High Court found that the defendant's mental impairment was a significant mitigating factor in the case. The court recognised that the defendant's intellectual disability and other mental health issues had played a role in her actions, and that these factors should be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the crime, acknowledging that the death of an 11-month-old child was a heinous act. However, the court determined that the defendant's moral culpability was significantly reduced due to her mental impairment. The court further found that there were no special circumstances that warranted a departure from the general principles of sentencing.

The High Court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court held that this sentence was proportionate to the crime, while also taking into account the defendant's mental impairment and reduced moral culpability. The court emphasised the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence, and highlighted the need for a balanced approach that considers both the objective seriousness of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders