R v BBF

In the case of R v BBF, the defendant was convicted of the attempted murder of her three-month-old baby. The defendant attempted to suffocate the child and subsequently called emergency services. During the call, the defendant followed the instructions of the ambulance officer. The court was required to determine whether these actions constituted a desistance of the defendant’s motion to further prosecute her intention under section 538 of the Criminal Code.

The court examined the defendant's actions following the attempted suffocation. The defendant's decision to call for emergency assistance and comply with the instructions given by the ambulance officer was evaluated in light of section 538 of the Criminal Code, which addresses desistance. The court found that the defendant's actions did not amount to a desistance as they were not sufficient to completely abandon the criminal enterprise. Instead, the court considered the totality of the defendant's conduct, including the initial attempt to harm the child.

Having concluded that the defendant had not effectively desisted, the court proceeded to determine an appropriate sentence. The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, considering the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court balanced the severity of the attempted murder with the defendant's subsequent actions, ultimately deciding on a sentence that reflected the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to four years imprisonment. The court found that the defendant's actions post the attempted suffocation did not constitute a desistance and thus did not mitigate the severity of the initial offence. The sentence reflects the need to uphold the seriousness of the crime while considering the defendant's subsequent conduct.