R v BBF

[2007] QCA 262

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v BBF [2007] QCA 262

PARTIES:

R
v
BBF
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2006
SC No 679 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 July 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment for attempted murder of her infant child – whether sufficient weight given to applicant's personal problems and remorse – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, applied
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied
R v Black [2005] QCA 132; CA No 28 of 2005, 29 April 2005, cited
R v Forster [2002] QCA 495; CA No 10 of 2002, 14 November 2002, cited
R v Reeves [2001] QCA 91; CA No 276 of 2000, 13 March 2002, cited

COUNSEL:

G P Long SC for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA.  I agree that the application should be refused for those reasons.

1. JERRARD JA:  I agree that the application should be dismissed, for the reasons given by Keane JA.

1. KEANE JA:  On 24 May 2006, the applicant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of attempted murder.  The charge was that, on 9 October 2004, the applicant attempted to suffocate her three month old daughter. 

1. On 25 May 2006, the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, and it was declared that four days had been served in respect of that sentence.  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.  I will discuss the applicant's contention after first setting out the circumstances of the offence, the applicant's personal circumstances and the considerations to which the learned sentencing judge referred.

The circumstances of the offence

1. The applicant was born in April 1984.  She was thus 20 years old at the time of the offence and 22 years of age when she was sentenced. 

1. The offence occurred when she was experiencing difficulty caring for her three month old baby and a 15 month old daughter.  Both her partner and her mother worked and she was left alone with the children.  On the day in question, the baby girl would not stop crying.  The applicant placed a blanket over the face of the…