Mr M Tedeschi QC with Mr K Alder (Crown) Mr P Winch (Offender)
SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Marsdens Law Group
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
R A Hulme J
9 December 2009
2008/17087 R v Rachel PFITZNER
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Rachel Pfitzner, the offender, has pleaded guilty to the murder of her two year old son, Dean Shillingsworth.
2 I note that the child’s name has been published in the media. I can only assume that this is because a “senior available next of kin” has consented to such publication: s 11(4)(d) Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The section otherwise prohibits the publication of anything that would identify the deceased’s siblings. In the published version of this judgment they will be identified by initials.
Events leading to Dean’s death
3 The offender was born in 1981. In August 2000 she had a daughter, T. In 2002, at the age of 21, she commenced a relationship with Paul Shillingsworth. The relationship appears to have been a stormy one. It was attended by arguments, alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence. Dean was born on 25 February 2005.
4 In February 2006, T complained about something that a Mr Michael Campbell had done. The offender and Mr Shillingsworth responded by seriously assaulting him. They were charged by the police and remanded in custody. Officers of the Department of Community Services took Dean and T to live with Ms Ann Coffey, the mother of Paul Shillingsworth, whilst the couple were in custody. Mr Shillingsworth remained in custody and that appears to have marked the end of the relationship. The offender was released after 2 days and came and took the children back. She then lived with them in a refuge in Armidale. Thereafter there was an informal arrangement whereby Ms Coffey cared for Dean for a few days at a time. At some point in early 2006 the offender is said to have told Ms Coffey’s partner, Edmund Caban, “I will kill Dean before he goes back with Ann”. Notwithstanding this, Ms Coffey still cared for Dean on subsequent occasions and had custody of him on a full-time basis through the latter…
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 Pfitzner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Pfitzner [2009] NSWSC 1267
Case
[2009] NSWSC 1267
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Pfitzner, the defendant was convicted of the murder of her two-year-old child. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the defendant for the crime committed. The defendant had killed her child and disposed of the body in a nearby pond. The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the court had taken into account all relevant factors in determining the sentence.
The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to the case, including the need for the sentence to reflect the community’s condemnation of the crime and to provide appropriate punishment and deterrence. The court noted that the crime involved the killing of a defenceless child and the subsequent concealment of the body, which indicated a high degree of premeditation and callousness. The court also considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, including her background and the impact of the crime on her family. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the gravity of the crime. The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new sentencing hearing to be conducted.
The final orders of the court required the trial judge to re-sentence the defendant, taking into account the factors identified by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crime and provided adequate punishment and deterrence. The case underscores the need for courts to carefully consider the circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence for serious crimes.