R v J - [1998] QCA 143

[1998] QCA 143

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
PINCUS JA
DOWSETT J

CA No 456 of 1997

THE QUEEN

J Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 17/03/98

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 14 November last to one count of grievous bodily harm and one of assault occasioning bodily harm. The first offence was alleged to have occurred on dates between 25 December 1996 and 5 April 1997 and the second on 25 February 1997. The victim in each case was the applicant's 18-month-old daughter B. The applicant was 27 at the time of commission of these offences and is now 28. She was sentenced to five years imprisonment in respect of the grievous bodily harm and one years imprisonment in respect of the assault occasioning bodily harm. The learned sentencing Judge added a recommendation for parole after two years.

Although the notice of appeal seeks to appeal against both of those sentences Mr Farmer, who appears for the applicant today, has informed us that the appeal is limited to that against the five year term for grievous bodily harm.

The applicant has no prior criminal record. The case is a most unusual one in that, it appears, the applicant deliberately injured her infant child in circumstances in which there is neither any clear view as to motive or any clear view that she suffered any identifiable mental disorder. Indeed, in the latter case, as I will mention a little later, the view seems to be to the contrary.

The most serious injuries inflicted by the applicant on the young child were caused by inserting her finger in the child's anus on numerous occasions thereby causing damage to her bowel and rectum. This occurred over a substantial period in circumstances in which it would have been obvious to almost anyone who was doing it that it caused the child excruciating pain. As a result the child required intensive care and for a time her condition was life-threatening. She may require major reconstructive surgery in the future entailing surgical removal of scarred and diseased areas of the rectum and replacement of part of the bowel. The gastroenterologist who examined the child thought it difficult to anticipate the likely outcome of her bowel injuries.

The child also suffered, at the applicant's hands, injuries to the oesophagus consisting of lesions caused by two separate acts. It is unclear what caused these but it was accepted in the applicant's plea of guilty that it was deliberate acts of the applicant.

The applicant herself had an unfortunate childhood. How unfortunate it is difficult to say because, as Dr Reddan, a psychiatrist who examined her on many occasions reported, the applicant tried to present herself in a virtuous light and was not a reliable historian. But it appears that she was a member of a large family of step children from different relationships and that she had an unhappy relationship with her stepfather who may possibly have sexually assaulted her.

She had…

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 J

Details

AGLC: R v J [1998] QCA 143
Case: [1998] QCA 143
Decision Date: 17/03/98

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal by an applicant against her sentence for grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning bodily harm inflicted on her infant daughter. The applicant, who had no prior criminal record, had deliberately caused severe injuries to her 18-month-old daughter, resulting in life-threatening conditions and the need for potential future surgery. The applicant had an unhappy childhood and a specific learning disability, but there was no evidence of any mental disorder. The Court of Appeal considered the nature and severity of the injuries inflicted, the applicant's lack of remorse, and her poor prospects for rehabilitation, as well as her background and personal circumstances. The Court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases of this nature, where the offences are often difficult to detect and prosecute. The Court found that the applicant's alleged psychiatric condition did not make this case analogous to those involving diminished responsibility or similar factors.

Orders