R v WXZ - [2024] QSC 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v WXZ [2024] QSC 216

PARTIES:

R
v
WXZ

(defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 793 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore on 6 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

21 August 2024, 2 September 2024

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDERS:

1.   Count 1: 9 and a half years’ imprisonment.

2.   Count 2: 2 years’ imprisonment.

3.   Terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.

4.   Charge 1: convicted and not further punished.

5.   Declare the period of presentence custody from 3 June 2020 to 5 September 2024, a total of 1556 days as time served on the sentences imposed.

6.   Declare the defendant eligible for parole on 3 June 2026.

7.   Convictions recorded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – where the defendant assumed the role of stepmother to two children – where the defendant failed to provide adequate food or care to two of the children – where the neglect of both children was over a prolonged period of several months – where the neglect caused severe malnourishment to both children – where the malnourishment resulted in the death of one of the children – where the other child survived with serious but recoverable injuries – where the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of cruelty to a child under 16 years – where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment – what is the appropriate sentence

Criminal Code (Qld), s 303, s 364

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 12A

Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26, cited
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited
R v Chard; Ex -parte Attorney-General [2004] QCA 372, cited
R v Free; Ex-parte Attorney-General (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58 , cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v O’Sullivan and Lee; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2019) 280 A Crim R 534; [2019] QCA 300, cited
R v Randall [2019] QCA 25, cited
R v Simpson [2019] QCA 205, cited
R v Walsh (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal No 85 of 1986, 12 June 1986), cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

N Crane with J Guy for the Crown

P Morreau for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown
NR Barbi Solicitors for the defendant

WXZ, you pleaded guilty before me on 21 August 2024 to two counts on an indictment, namely:
“ 1. That on or about the twenty-third day of May, 2020 at Cannon Hill in the State of Queensland, WXZ unlawfully killed ZYV.
And the offence was a domestic violence offence; and
2. That between the twenty-eighth day of August,…

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 WXZ

Details

AGLC: R v WXZ [2024] QSC 216
Case: [2024] QSC 216
Decision Date: 6 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v WXZ involved a defendant who had assumed the role of stepmother to two children. The defendant failed to provide adequate food or care to both children over a prolonged period, resulting in severe malnourishment. One child died, and the other survived with serious injuries. The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and child cruelty charges. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as other relevant factors. The maximum penalty for the offences was life imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to the nature and circumstances of the offence, and how to balance these with other relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court had to consider the prolonged neglect, the resulting malnourishment, the death of one child, and the survival of the other child with serious injuries. The court also had to consider the defendant's plea of guilty and any other mitigating or aggravating factors.

In determining the sentence, the court gave significant weight to the nature and circumstances of the offence, particularly the prolonged neglect and the severe consequences that resulted from it. The court noted the defendant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor but found it insufficient to substantially reduce the sentence. The court considered the maximum penalty and balanced this with the need to deter such conduct in the future, as well as the need for the defendant to be held accountable for her actions. The court imposed a sentence of 9 and a half years for manslaughter and 2 years for child cruelty, to be served concurrently. The court also declared the period of presentence custody as time served on the sentences imposed and set a parole eligibility date.

The court's final orders included a sentence of 9 and a half years' imprisonment for manslaughter and 2 years' imprisonment for child cruelty, to be served concurrently. The court declared the period of presentence custody from 3 June 2020 to 5 September 2024, a total of 1556 days, as time served on the sentences imposed. The court also declared the defendant eligible for parole on 3 June 2026 and recorded the convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Count 1: 9 and a half years’ imprisonment.

2. Count 2: 2 years’ imprisonment.

3. Terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.

4. Charge 1: convicted and not further punished.

5. Declare the period of presentence custody from 3 June 2020 to 5 September 2024, a total of 1556 days as time served on the sentences imposed.

6. Declare the defendant eligible for parole on 3 June 2026.

7. Convictions recorded.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v WXZ [2024] QSC 216
PARTIES:	R v WXZ (defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 793 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore on 6 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	21 August 2024, 2 September 2024
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDERS:	1. Count 1: 9 and a half years’ imprisonment. 2. Count 2: 2 years’ imprisonment. 3. Terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently. 4. Charge 1: convicted and not further punished. 5. Declare the period of presentence custody from 3 June 2020 to 5 September 2024, a total of 1556 days as time served on the sentences imposed. 6. Declare the defendant eligible for parole on 3 June 2026. 7. Convictions recorded.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – where the defendant assumed the role of stepmother to two children – where the defendant failed to provide adequate food or care to two of the children – where the neglect of both children was over a prolonged period of several months – where the neglect caused severe malnourishment to both children – where the malnourishment resulted in the death of one of the children – where the other child survived with serious but recoverable injuries – where the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of cruelty to a child under 16 years – where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment – what is the appropriate sentence Criminal Code (Qld), s 303, s 364 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 12A Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26, cited R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, cited R v Chard; Ex -parte Attorney-General [2004] QCA 372, cited R v Free; Ex-parte Attorney-General (2020) 4 QR 80; [2020] QCA 58 , cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v O’Sullivan and Lee; Ex-parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2019) 280 A Crim R 534; [2019] QCA 300, cited R v Randall [2019] QCA 25, cited R v Simpson [2019] QCA 205, cited R v Walsh (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal No 85 of 1986, 12 June 1986), cited Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited
COUNSEL:	N Crane with J Guy for the Crown P Morreau for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown NR Barbi Solicitors for the defendant