Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the prosecution Cridland Hua for the defendant
Diquan Erwin Lloyd Fisher, on 30 May 2022, you pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Brisbane to one charge of manslaughter with a circumstance of aggravation, that is to say, that the offence was a domestic violence offence. You were committed for sentence to this court.
An indictment was presented on 22 July 2022 and then promptly listed to proceed as a sentence on 2 September 2022. At the conclusion of submissions on that day, the hearing was adjourned to allow the court to consider the appropriate sentence to be imposed in your case.
Overview
You were 18 years old at the time of this offence and living in a residential unit at Corinda with the mother of the victim, a baby who was only 11 months old when she died on 5 February 2020. You first met the baby’s mother about a year earlier and formed a relationship of sorts, described in submissions as an “on and off again” relationship because there were periods throughout the preceding year when you were not in a relationship and living apart. You were not the baby’s father.
By all accounts, the baby was a happy, functioning child up until the evening of 1 February 2020 when her mother left her in your care for a short time. Angered by the baby not settling to sleep, you picked her up around the waist and shook her so vigorously that the acceleration and deceleration forces you generated caused a fatal combination of head, spinal…
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 Fisher
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Fisher [2022] QSC 189
Case
[2022] QSC 189
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the respondent, Fisher, was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his infant son. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which reviewed the sentencing imposed by the lower court. The key issue for the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The Court examined whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for manslaughter involving the death of an infant. The Court noted that Fisher's actions were reckless rather than intentional, and the tragic nature of the death of an infant warranted consideration of the full circumstances. The Court also considered the principles of proportionality and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence while taking into account the offender's culpability.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentence appropriately balanced the need to punish the offender with the need to consider the tragic circumstances of the case. The Court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range for manslaughter involving an infant victim, and therefore upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. Fisher's conviction for manslaughter and the sentence of imprisonment were upheld.