Legal Research
Cases
R v Abrahams

R v Abrahams

Case [2013] NSWSC 952 18 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kristi Anne Abrahams [2013] NSWSC 952
Hearing dates: 24, 25 and 27 June 2013
Decision date: 18 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
For the offence of improperly interfering with the body of the deceased Kiesha Weippeart, sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months commencing on 22 April 2011 expiring on 21 October 2012.
For the offence of the murder of Kiesha Weippeart, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 22 April 2012 expiring on 21 April 2027 with a balance of term of 6 years and 6 months commencing on 22 April 2027 expiring on 21 October 2033.
The aggregate sentence is one of 22 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 16 years. The first day upon which the offender will become eligible for release on parole is 22 April 2027.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder of six year old child by mother - precise time and cause of death unknown - plea of guilty and admission of act causing death - where finding beyond reasonable doubt of infliction of fatal injuries with intention of causing grievous bodily harm - failure to seek medical treatment - middle range of objective seriousness for murder of its type - where offender has history of violent and dysfunctional childhood and intellectual disability - additional offence of improper treatment of body of the deceased - most serious category for such an offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hinchcliffe v R [2010] NSWCCA 306
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mitchell v R [2010] NSWCCA 145
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v F.A.P. [2007] NSWSC 905
R v Ha [2008] NSWSC 1368
R v JCW [2000] NSWCCA 209; (2000) 112 A Crim R 466
R v O'Brien [2003] NSWCCA 121
R v Sam [2011] NSWCCA 36
R v Turchino [2005] NSWSC 1214
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Wilkinson [1999] NSWCCA 248
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
Tran, Hoai Vinh v R [2011] NSWCCA 116
Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kristi Anne Abrahams (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
C Maxwell QC (Crown)
J Manuell SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Armstrong Legal (Accused)

File Number(s): 2011/133212

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 Abrahams

Details

AGLC: R v Abrahams [2013] NSWSC 952
Case: [2013] NSWSC 952
Decision Date: 18 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of R v Abrahams involved the sentencing of the respondent, Abrahams, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his six-year-old child. The precise time and cause of the child's death remained unknown, but Abrahams admitted to causing the death through an act resulting in grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's background, and the additional charge of improper treatment of the body. The legal issues included the appropriate range for the murder sentence, the impact of Abrahams' history of violence and intellectual disability, and the severity of the improper treatment of the body.

The court considered the middle range of objective seriousness for the murder, acknowledging the infliction of fatal injuries with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm. Despite the unknown precise time and cause of death, the court found beyond reasonable doubt that Abrahams had committed the act. The failure to seek medical treatment for the child and the offender's history of a violent and dysfunctional childhood, coupled with intellectual disability, were also taken into account. Additionally, the improper treatment of the body was categorised as the most serious type of offence, necessitating a concurrent and substantial sentence. The court balanced these factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

The Supreme Court of South Australia determined that the middle range of the objective seriousness scale for murder was suitable, considering the circumstances. The court recognised Abrahams' troubled background but emphasised the need for a sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes. The concurrent sentencing for the improper treatment of the body and the murder ensured that the punishment was commensurate with the offences. The final orders included a sentence that appropriately balanced the offender's background with the need to uphold the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Orders