R v Major

[2000] QCA 293

[2000] QCA 293

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J

[R v Major]

CA No 136 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

FIONA MAJOR  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/07/2000

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole recommended after 18 months having pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm with intent.  She is a 27 year old woman with no prior criminal history.  

The complainant was a man with whom she had a sexual relationship.  She believed that he had transmitted a sexual disease to her, being genital warts.  With that belief she inflicted serious wounds upon him;  three stab wounds to the abdomen, two to the left upper thigh, one each to his penis and scrotum.  Surgery was necessary to save his life.

The learned sentencing Judge rightly pointed out to the applicant that the Court could not be involved in any exercise of countenancing, taking the law into one's own hands in the way she did, that the complainant's life was very much in danger, that there was premeditation and lack of remorse involved in the crime.

He declined to declare the applicant guilty of having committed a serious violent offence, but pointed out the need for deterrence in the circumstances and imposed what he believed was an appropriate penalty moderated to reflect the plea of guilty.  The Judge sentenced the applicant on the basis that her belief that the complainant had infected her with genital warts was misplaced. 

There is some evidence before us now, secured following the involvement of some Canberra solicitors on the applicant's behalf, which may suggest that the applicant does suffer from this condition.  We have looked at the sentence today on the assumption that she suffers from that condition inflicted upon her by the complainant. 

I have to say that even approaching the matter on that basis, which is different from the basis adopted by the learned sentencing Judge, the sentence imposed upon her was in no degree manifestly excessive.  The applicant, who was prepared today to conduct the application herself, conceded as much.  Her concession was plainly right.  Indeed, the particular recommendation appended here may be seen as generous to the applicant bearing in mind the circumstances of the serious crime she committed. I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.  I would add that a circumstance which inclines me to take the view that the sentence imposed below was, if anything, too lenient is that the applicant has plainly no remorse for what she has done.

WILLIAMS J:  I would add to what has been said by my colleagues that counsel for the applicant before the sentencing Judge tendered a number of medical reports.  One was from R J Zemaitis, a psychologist.  It became Exhibit 4.  That report proceeded on the assumption that the applicant's belief that she had genital warts was correct. 

That report, it seems to me, contains all of the matters which the applicant wished to emphasise in her submissions before us.  It is also clear to me that it was largely on the basis of the contents of that report, Exhibit 4, that the learned sentencing Judge made the recommendation for parole after serving 18 months.  I agree with all that has been said by The Chief Justice and Justice Pincus.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

-----