R v Farquhar - [1994] QCA 589

COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 589
MACROSSAN CJ PINCUS JA DOWSETT J
CA No 349 of 1994
THE QUEEN v JENNIFER KAY FARQUHAR	Applicant
BRISBANE
DATE 16/11/94
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her sentence which was one of eight years imprisonment unaccompanied by any recommendation in respect of the attempted murder of the person with whom she had been living at the date of the offence. The offence occurred in October of 1993 and she was convicted and sentenced in August of this year.

She is 33 years of age. She was 32 at the time of the offence, we are told. The circumstances of the offence are conveniently set out in the Crown/s outline of submissions. The applicant commenced to assault the complainant by delivering one or more blows to his head. To the extent that her own detailed account is reliable, she admitted jumping on his head and hitting him on the head with a bottle.

Other persons, witnesses at the trial, saw her deliver barefoot kicks to his head while he was unconscious; saw her banging his head on the floor, and while he was unconscious, saw her jumping on his stomach. It seems there was some domestic tension which preceded all this activity on the applicant's part, but the point is that after a trial, she was found guilty by a jury of attempted murder.

The victim of her violence has been left extremely seriously injured. The Judge described some of the consequences in this fashion: "He spent a long period in hospital, some five months or so. He's been in his parents' care after being discharged. He has to have twice-weekly treatment." More exactly describing his condition, the Judge said, "His balance is greatly impaired. He's been reduced from a fit, active man to a person with problems including lack of co-ordination, speech problems, memory problems, all of them due to the severity of the head injuries caused by the applicant. He can walk unaided, but not a great distance. He can't stand long. He can't run. He seems to be subject now to epileptic fits." As the Judge said, "In short, his life has been ruined." Those were the consequences of the applicant's actions.

The applicant must be viewed even more seriously in terms of her behaviour because of a previous conviction. In June of 1989, the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful wounding involving the same man. From the sentencing comments, the Judge has extracted the information that on that occasion, the applicant stabbed the unfortunate man four times. The applicant was then given two years probation and ordered to undergo certain medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment.

Attempted murder cases must, of course, carry substantial penalties when the conviction results. So much was not contested. Counsel for the applicant, without justifying exactly in terms of cases to which he refers, suggested that the range was five to eight years. The Crown contended that the range…

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 Farquhar

Details

AGLC: R v Farquhar [1994] QCA 589
Case: [1994] QCA 589
Decision Date: 16/11/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jennifer Farquhar, sought leave to appeal against her eight-year imprisonment sentence for attempted murder. The appeal was heard by Macrossan CJ, Pincus JA, and Dowsett J in the Court of Appeal. The applicant had previously been convicted of unlawful wounding against the same victim in 1989, and had been sentenced to two years' probation. In October 1993, Farquhar assaulted the victim, causing severe head injuries that left him with permanent disabilities, including impaired balance, speech, memory, and susceptibility to epileptic fits. Despite the severity of the attack and Farquhar's history of violence, the trial judge did not include a parole recommendation with the sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to include a parole recommendation. The Crown argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range of seven to ten years, while the applicant's counsel suggested the range was between five to eight years. The court found that the sentence was not excessive and that the lack of a parole recommendation did not render the sentence inappropriate. The court also emphasised the importance of the intent to kill in sentencing for attempted murder.

The court held that the sentence was within the proper exercise of the trial judge's discretion, and that the lack of a parole recommendation did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal.

Orders