The State of Western Australia v McCullock [No 4]

[2025] WASC 158

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MCCULLOCK [No 4] [2025] WASC 158

CORAM:   FORRESTER J

HEARD:   23 APRIL 2025

DELIVERED          :   23 APRIL 2025

FILE NO/S:   INS 49 of 2023

BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Prosecution

AND

SARA JADE MCCULLOCK

Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) - Accused acquitted of murder on account of mental impairment - Whether custody order or community supervision order required - Custody order - Duration of limiting term

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

Result:

Custody order made with a limiting term of life imprisonment

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	M M Cvetkoski
Accused	:	Ms S Auburn

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	Director of Public Prosecution (WA)
Accused	:	Ms S Auburn

Cases referred to in decision:

The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2024] WASC 346

The State of Western Australia v Sara Jade McCullock [No 3] [2024] WASC 469

The State of Western Australia v Thomas [No 2] [2024] WASC 403

FORRESTER J:

Introduction

1. On 9 December 2024 I acquitted Sara Jade McCullock of the charge of murder, by reason of mental impairment, pursuant to s 27(1) of the Criminal Code (WA).[1]

   [1] The State of Western Australia v Sara Jade McCullock [No 3] [2024] WASC 469.

Statutory framework and legal principles

1. If a court acquits an accused of a charge on account of mental impairment, the court must deal with the accused under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) (Act).[2]  Section 44(1) of the Act requires that the court must make an order under pt 5 of the Act in respect of the accused.

   [2] Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) s 149(1).

2. Pursuant to s 46 of the Act, a court which must make an order under pt 5 in respect of an accused must, in the case of an adult found to have committed a serious offence, make a custody order or a community supervision order.

3. The offence of murder is a 'serious offence' within the meaning of the Act.[3]  Under the Act, a reference to an offence that a person is 'found to have committed' includes a reference to an offence of which the person was acquitted on account of mental impairment, and that is the context in which I use it in this case.[4]

   [3] Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) (Act) s 9, sch 1, div 1, subdiv 3, Item 9.

   [4] Act s 11(2).

4. The court must make a custody order in respect of the accused in this case unless it is satisfied that the risk that the accused appears to present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.

5. A court exercising a function under the Act must have regard to the principles set out in s 7(2) of the Act.  Further, pursuant to s 8 of the Act, the paramount consideration of a court performing a function under the Act is the protection of the community.

6. Section 47 of the Act requires the court, in making a decision under pt 5, to have regard to a number of factors, of which the following are relevant in this case:

   (a)the protection of the community;

   (b)the nature of the offence and the circumstances of its commission;

   (c)the person's character, antecedents, age and health;

   (d)the nature of the person's mental impairment;

   (e)the relationship between the mental impairment and the offending conduct;

   (f)the degree of risk that the person appears to present to themself or the safety of the community because of their mental impairment; and

   (g)the extent to which adequate resources are available for the treatment, care and support of the person in the community.

7. The court may also have regard to any other matter it considers relevant.

Facts of the offence

1. The facts of the offence are set out in detail in my judgment on your trial.  I will repeat some of them here, but I do not intend to go into the same kind of detail.

2. Jace Air Martin was born on 28 February 2021.  At that time, you were living in the Northern Territory with Jace's father.

3. As I will detail shortly, you have long had mental health issues, complicated by substance misuse.  After Jace's birth, it became apparent that substance misuse was not the sole cause of your mental health issues, and you were diagnosed with schizophrenia.  You were prescribed medication, which appeared to stabilise your mental health.

4. When Jace was about six months old, you moved to Western Australia, where your mother and sister were living.  Unfortunately, as often occurs with antipsychotic medication, you did not like the way your medication made you feel, and, as is also often the case, because you felt well you decided you did not need to take your medication anymore.  It appears then that you stopped taking it when you first arrived in Western Australia.

5. It is not necessary for me to detail the events leading up to the early hours of 27 April 2022.  It is sufficient to say that your mental health began to decline significantly in the weeks and days before it, and you were noticed in the week before it to be behaving bizarrely, clearly responding to auditory hallucinations, and occasionally acting aggressively.  People thought that you were taking drugs.  Your mother tried to get you to go to the doctor, but you resisted.  You had a medical appointment booked for 28 April.

6. Your mother was to stay with your sister on the night of 26 April 2022 into the morning of 27 April 2022.  They both left you and Jace at the house at about 7.30 ‑ 8.00 pm.  They thought you were okay, and you had told them you were just tired.

7. Unfortunately, this was not true.  You were in the grips of a psychotic episode, which became far worse when you went to have a shower, before your mother and sister left.  You were hearing voices, which threatened your son.  It is unnecessary for me to repeat the things that you heard and saw at this time; it is sufficient for me to say that they were terrifying and in that state you believed them to be real.  It was in these circumstances, and believing that the only way to protect Jace was to kill him, that you swung him and hit his head on the ground.

8. It is not entirely clear how many times you hit Jace's head on the ground.  However, the severity and number of injuries inflicted upon him were such that the pathologist believed it was more than once, and the force used was very significant.

9. I have found that, while your intention was the product of an unsound mind, in inflicting those injuries on Jace, your intention was to kill him.

10. You carried Jace around in your arms for some time after this, fighting off the monsters you believed were all around you.  Unfortunately, at some point Jace died as a result of his injuries.

11. The neighbours had noticed noises and screaming coming from your house throughout the night and eventually, in the early hours of the morning, police attended in response to calls from them.  When the police did arrive, just before 5.00 am, you were holding Jace in your arms.  They tried to render first aid, but there was no prospect of reviving him.

Victim impact

1. In my view, having regard to s 7(2)(k) of the Act, Jace's family can appropriately be considered victims of the offence committed by you, as those terms are defined in the Act.  As such, they should have the opportunity to be heard and acknowledged.  In those circumstances, I have received Victim Impact Statements from Jace's father, Aaron Martin, and Jace's grandfather, Kelly White.  I have also received statements from your mother, Patricia Corocher, your father, Keith McCullock, and your sister, Tina McCullock.  In these reasons I cannot do justice to the trauma and pain which is eloquently expressed in each of those statements.

2. Understandably, the whole family was devastated by Jace's death and the manner of it.  Mr Martin says he was constantly angry, but he has now emotionally shut down and blocked out his feelings.  He feels numb, and he mourns the loss of the opportunity to see his son grow into his potential, and he also mourns the loss of his own identity as a father.  He says he and his family will never be the same.

3. Mr White speaks of the rifts and trauma Jace's death has caused in his family, as well as the financial strain on them all.

4. Both statements eloquently express the sadness which has flowed outwards from the death of a young and precious boy who was taken from the world in such a terrible way.

5. Your family too, tell of the struggle to deal with Jace's death.  They loved him and they miss him and the light he was in their lives.  They also express their support of you, and their desire to help you through your recovery.

6. As I indicated earlier, it is impossible for people not to want to have a person to blame in a case such as this, and it is understandable that some people have difficulty reconciling those feelings with the outcome in this case.  That only makes it more difficult for them to cope with what has happened.

Personal circumstances

1. You were born on 13 July 1993 and are now 31 years old.  At the time of Jace's death you were 28 years of age.

2. You were the youngest of two daughters born to your parents, who separated when you were 14 years old.  You do not report any particular trauma or adversity in your childhood.

3. Your primary schooling was average to good, but you experienced behavioural challenges at high school and stopped attending when you were about 14.  This appears to have coincided with a relationship in which you were 13 and your male partner was 22 years old, during which you started using MDMA or ecstasy.  You were binge drinking on weekends.  You started abusing other substances: first cannabis, then methylamphetamine, to which you were introduced by an acquaintance.

4. I note that Dr Wojnarowska says you first used methylamphetamine at the age of 23, but the weight of evidence that I have seen is to the contrary.

5. After your parents' separation, your mother moved to Queensland and you lived with your father in New South Wales.  However, you did not get along with your father's new partner, and you left home at 15 to live with an older boyfriend.  That relationship lasted until you were about 19 years old.  Around then you also had other problematic relationships, including with a man who used excessive amounts of cannabis.

6. You told Dr McCreanor that you were first diagnosed with depression and anxiety at around the age of 18.  You were medicated for that, but you only took that medication 'on and off'.  At around this time, you also started your own pet grooming business, and completed a course in Small Business Management.  However, you stopped this when you were about 22 years old, and started working in the mines in New South Wales.

7. When you were 24, you commenced a six month relationship with a 32 year old man, who used methylamphetamine.  You were using it too, and after the relationship ended, continued to use it, about once a week.  You reported that you experienced significant cognitive impairment from that drug use.

8. As a further result of that drug use, in 2016 and 2017 you had several short inpatient admissions in New South Wales due to psychotic symptoms in the context of substance use and for detoxification.  There was brief follow up by a mental health service at the time.  Medical professionals were uncertain as to the cause of your psychosis, due to the difficulty of separating it from drug use.  Eventually, you underwent drug rehabilitation for six months, in 2018 and 2019.  During that time, you were prescribed olanzapine.

9. When you were released, you moved to live with your mother and sister in the Northern Territory.  At that point, it appears you stopped taking the olanzapine, and you say you have not been completely symptom free since.

10. Your sister observed that you liked listening to techno music, mainly by a band called Crisis Era, and that when you were in a manic state you would obsess about it and play it louder.  You would also dance around and laugh and giggle to yourself.  You had told your sister in the past that you heard voices.  However, she thought you seemed much better in the Northern Territory and she believed that you were taking your medication.

11. You first met Aaron Martin in about March 2020, and you formed a relationship with him.  Mr Martin saw you using cannabis and alcohol from the first day you met.  You also told him about the voices you heard, and the effect of drugs on you.  He too saw you were obsessed with Crisis Era and particularly a member of that band.

12. About six weeks into that relationship, you fell pregnant, and you gave birth to Jace on 28 February 2021 without complication.  Unfortunately, your mental health deteriorated during your pregnancy, and then after Jace's birth.  Your relationship with Mr Martin also deteriorated at that time.  You were observed by others to be abusing alcohol, said you were hearing voices, and you were acting aggressively towards others.  However, you did not at any point appear to be a threat to your son.

13. After one night on which you had a particularly troubling psychotic episode, you were admitted to Alice Springs Hospital for treatment.  It appears it was at this time, there being no evidence of recent drug use, that you were diagnosed with schizophrenia.  You resumed taking medication, and your mental health notably improved.  However, you did not, again, like the effects of olanzapine, particularly the sedative effects.  Plans were made to transition you to different medication, but you moved to Perth and failed to engage with mental health services.  Instead, you again ceased taking your medication.

14. That was when Jace was about six months old.  For a while, your mother and sister thought you were doing well.  They said you did not have many friends, but you were looking after Jace and you seemed to be a terrific mum.

15. About two to three months before 27 April 2022, you bought a substance online which you believed to be cannabis oil.  You finished that bottle and bought another, a couple of weeks before Jace's death.  I have already found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that that substance did contain the byproducts of cannabis, but even if it did, it was not of significance to your mental state on 27 April 2022.

16. After the events of that night, you were admitted to Rockingham Emergency Department and then to the Frankland Centre.  I have comprehensively summarised the evidence of what took place there in my reasons for judgment, and it is not necessary for me to repeat that evidence here.  It is sufficient to say that you were found to be acutely psychotic.  Eventually, you responded sufficiently well to treatment that you were discharged from the Frankland Centre to prison for continuing treatment.

17. I watched you carefully during the time that you gave your evidence.  I accept Dr Brett's opinion that you continued at that time to still exhibit some symptoms of psychosis.  Dr McCreanor's report suggests that, while there is no evidence of formal thought disorder or hallucinations, you still have resulting confusion about what is real and what is not.

18. I am told that your sister, mother and father remain supportive of you.  Your father lives interstate, but visits when he can.  Your mother and sister also visit every two to three months, and speak on the phone to you regularly.  They are willing to have you live with them on release, although they have requested a robust action plan and support for their concerns should they raise them.

19. You presently work in the prison textiles department as a manager.  You hope that, when you are eventually released, you will be able to work in customer service and to volunteer working with dogs.

Criminal history

1. You do have a criminal record in New South Wales, starting from when you were 20 years old.  The facts of the offences are not well known, but you have been convicted of criminal damage, aggravated burglary, stalking, assault public officer, common assault (domestic violence), and assault occasioning bodily harm.  You have attributed your criminal offending to unstable mental health and substance abuse, and your record does indeed have some aspects in common with people who have severe mental illness.

2. On conviction, you have been made subject to various community supervision orders, but your engagement with your obligations was generally unsatisfactory.  However, I note that you did complete your residential rehabilitation program, which was a court ordered requirement.

Reports

1. I have to hand the following reports:

   (a)Dr Madeline McCreanor, Consultant Psychiatrist of the State Forensic Mental Health Service dated 4 April 2025;

   (b)Dr Gosia Wojnarowska, Forensic Consultant Psychiatrist dated 22 April 2025; and

   (c)Pre-disposition report of Adult Community Corrections dated 16 April 2025.

2. Despite their dates, all of these reports were received yesterday.

3. I will not summarise the contents of each of the reports individually, but I will detail relevant findings under the headings relating to the criteria I must consider under the Act when determining whether I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the risk you appear to present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.

Nature of the mental impairment, relationship between the mental impairment and offending conduct, degree of risk posed to the accused and community due to mental impairment, and protection of the community

1. I am satisfied that you have schizophrenia, which is, at least at this stage, only partially treated.  Dr Brett and Dr McCreanor considered that the appropriate diagnosis for your condition is one of chronic paranoid schizophrenia.  Dr Wojnarowska preferred a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.  There are differences between the two, although psychosis is common to both.  It seems that Dr Wojnarowska is of the view that her diagnosis explains why antidepressant medication and lithium have made a difference in your recovery.  While the diagnosis is important, because that will impact on the appropriate treatment, the psychotic aspects of your illness are highly relevant to risk in this case.  In this regard, I note that you still express some reservations about the unreality of your past delusions and your imaginary boyfriend.

2. Dr Wojnarowska also expressed the view that your personality vulnerabilities are causally related to your risk of re‑offending, for example: you are likely to relapse into drug taking when exposed to stress.

3. The nature of your mental illness is such as to pose a risk to others who encounter you when you are having a psychotic episode.  Apart from the fact that your hallucinations and delusions in this case caused you to believe that you needed to kill your child, the evidence, including but not limited to your criminal history, indicates that you have a willingness to act in an aggressive way towards other members of the community when psychotic, and you have physically assaulted other people on occasion.

4. It is inherent in what I have already said that I do consider that your mental impairment is wholly responsible for your actions which resulted in Jace's death.

5. While it may be that what has happened on this occasion has changed your attitude towards your mental illness and its treatment, you have in the past demonstrated an unwillingness to take your medication consistently.  I note that you have expressed some uncertainty about the utility of lithium when speaking to Dr McCreanor and were hoping to have it reviewed.  That is one of the medications which, in Dr Wojnarowska's view, has contributed to the increased stability in your mental health.  However, I note that to Dr Wojnaroska you acknowledged the improvement in your condition which has resulted from the use of lithium.  This indicates some continuing ambivalence and variation in your attitudes towards your medication over time.

1. Dr McCreanor was of the view that you have good insight into your illness, and recognise that medications help you manage your psychosis.  However, I do have grave concerns as to whether you would comply with your medication if left unsupervised, or even if the only supervision was by your family.  Further, while I have found that your psychosis was not induced by intoxication in this case, that was largely because it was not possible for me to know what you had ingested.  Had you had your way, you would have been using substances which would likely have impacted on your psychosis.

2. I do accept that dislike of medication, and the misconception that feeling better means that the medication is no longer required, are common features of schizophrenia.  However, what has also been demonstrated is that, in the absence of that medication, you are capable of extreme violence.

3. Dr McCreanor assessed your risk of violence using the HCR20v3, which is a validated structured risk judgment tool which identified risk factors known to be associated with violent offending at a population level.  You have a number of factors which are present or partially present and which help inform that risk.  Ultimately, your score suggested that, if you are not treated, and are using substances, you are at moderate risk of future violence with a higher risk of reoffending if you are transitioned directly into the community.

4. Of course, there is no tool that can accurately predict risk and this case is an example of a case in which no one anticipated that such events could have taken place.

5. All of the experts have indicated their view is that the greatest risk is if you were acutely unwell or intoxicated.  It is clear that you continuing your medication and continuing to abstain from substances is critical in keeping your mental illness under control.  You will need very high levels of support for you to do that.

6. All of the experts are of the opinion that, unless you are unwell or intoxicated, your risk of violence would be low.

7. While you do have some protective factors, your family support, which is considered to be a protective factor, existed before Jace's death.  As to the other factors, which the psychiatrists suggest are protective, they are all dependent on your insight and acceptance of treatment, and none have been adequately tested in the community since those factors have been present.

8. Ultimately, I consider that, at present, there is a significant risk to others, and potentially even yourself.  It is necessary for the order that I make to give significant weight to the protection of the community.  Indeed, the legislation requires that I make that the paramount consideration.

Treatment

1. I have been provided with a pre-disposition psychiatric report as I say, dated 4 April 2025 by Dr McCreanor.  Unfortunately, Dr McCreanor was only able to interview you for 30 minutes, due to custodial requirements, which is unsatisfactory.  However, during that time, she was able to engage well with you and she had access to a wealth of other materials.

2. I also have Dr Wojnarowksa's report.  While Dr Wojnarowska does not say in her report how long she interviewed you, it is clear that she was also able to engage well with you.

3. Dr McCreanor recommends that supports, supervision and monitoring will be required, with close liaison between your mental health team and Community Corrections to ensure identification of early relapse signs or substance abuse.

4. In Dr McCreanor's opinion, you would benefit from an inpatient setting for a period at the Frankland Centre, enabling a longitudinal assessment and adjustment to medications.  You also need long term psychotherapy, and may benefit from specialist alcohol and drug counselling.

5. Whether admission to the Frankland Centre at this stage is possible is a somewhat open question.  It is regrettable that such treatment as may be possible may, at some times, be in the custodial setting.

6. In Dr McCreanor's view, community management would be clinically inappropriate at this stage.  Whether ultimately there are adequate resources to manage your condition in the community can only be determined, in her view,  after a longitudinal assessment.  Accordingly, Dr McCreanor recommends that the most appropriate disposition is a custody order.

7. Dr Wojnarowska was of the view that there are adequate resources in Perth to manage you.  She suggested that the Community Forensic Mental Health Services or local mental health services would be able to assist you, and that you would have access to inpatient psychiatric services and the psychologist to offer specialist advice and support.  She suggests that standard conditions would be sufficient to manage you in the community, including assertive mental health follow‑up and drug screening, with low tolerance for breaching any conditions, with enforcement to include a treatment order or admission to the Frankland Centre.

Custody order or community supervision order

1. I accept the opinion of Dr McCreanor.  In my view, Dr Wojnarowska's report does not adequately engage with the challenges that you are going to face when you do transition from your custodial setting to the community, or how they will be managed.  You have yet to properly engage with the consequences of what you have done, and it is my view that you will require more intensive support and supervision before moves are made to transition you to the community, including psychotherapy to deal with the trauma of what you have done.  Further, when you do transition to the community, you will need more supervision and support, for a longer period, than in my view, a community supervision order can reasonably offer. 

2. Having considered all of the evidence, including the submissions of your counsel, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the risk that you present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.  On that basis, I must therefore make a custody order.

Limiting term

1. Having made that determination, I am required to set a limiting term, pursuant to s 50 of the Act.

2. In The State of Western Australia v Chokolich,[5] Quinlan CJ considered the proper construction of s 50 of the Act in the context of an offence of murder, and the requirements imposed on the court by that provision, which were summarised by Seaward J in The State of Western Australia v Thomas.[6]  Applying the legal principles outlined in this case:

   (a)I am required to determine the 'best estimate' of the term of imprisonment that a court 'would, in all the circumstances' have imposed based on certain assumptions.  This task is necessarily a hypothetical exercise;

   (b)the use of the word 'would' signifies that I am required to 'stand in the shoes' of a hypothetical sentencing court and apply the relevant principles contained in the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), including in s 6 of that Act, in light of ordinary sentencing principles;

   (c)one of the assumptions imposed by s 50 of the Act is that in setting the limiting term, I am not to take into account your mental impairment.  That assumption (or counter‑factual) may be relevant to the circumstances of the case, mitigatory factors and potentially facts that might have resulted in a longer term of imprisonment;

   (d)the other assumptions imposed by s 50 of the Act are that I must assume that you pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, including all necessary elements of that offence, at the earliest opportunity.  I must also assume there is no other option but to impose a term of imprisonment;

   (e)subject to the exceptional circumstances identified in s 279(4)(a) and s 279(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of life imprisonment for murder is a mandatory one.  Therefore, on its proper construction, s 50 of the Act requires that if, on the assumptions required by that section, the mandatory term of life imprisonment would have been imposed, then the limiting term must be set as the duration of that mandatory term;

   (f)given the exceptional nature of a sentence other than life imprisonment for murder generally, the circumstances in which a limiting term on a charge of murder will be set as a term other than the duration of the person's life will be equally exceptional.  This is particularly the case given the statutory requirement to exclude from consideration the accused's mental impairment.  This is because an accused's mental impairment at the time of committing an offence might otherwise have been the principal reason for concluding that it would be 'clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person' to have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment; and

   (g)where the court's 'best estimate' of the sentence that the sentencing court would have imposed is life imprisonment, s 50 of the Act does not permit, or require, the court to determine the minimum non-parole period that would have been set had you been sentenced to life imprisonment.

   [5] The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2024] WASC 346 [74] ‑ [77].

   [6] The State of Western Australia v Thomas [No 2] [2024] WASC 403 [92].

3. As I have indicated, pursuant to s 8 of the Act, the court's paramount consideration in performing functions under the Act is the protection of the community.  I am also required to, and do, have regard to the principles set out in s 7(2) of the Act, in so far as they are relevant to this case.

4. The statutory penalty for murder is life imprisonment, unless that sentence would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person and the person is unlikely to be a threat to the safety of the community when released from imprisonment.[7]

   [7] Criminal Code s 279(4).

5. Ms Auburn has submitted to me that I should find a sentence of life imprisonment to be clearly unjust as the offence could have been prevented if others had intervened prior to the events of 27 April 2025.

6. The submission is to the effect that you were not properly monitored after you were discharged from the Alice Springs Hospital, that you should have been monitored and followed up when you moved to Western Australia, and that those who encountered you in the lead up to Jace's death should have intervened to have you involuntarily detained for treatment.  Ms Auburn submitted that it is the fact that the tragedy was avoidable and that many people could have prevented it which makes a sentence of life imprisonment clearly unjust.

7. I cannot accept that submission.  Firstly, it seems to lack any acknowledgement, that you do have the capacity to exercise free will, and that, while you committed this terrible act when acutely psychotic, you were the one who chose to cease taking your medication, despite the fact that you must have been aware, at least partly, of the potential consequences to your mental health.  Secondly, those people did not know you, and in many cases you lied to them about what you were experiencing, including on the night you killed Jace, when your mother and sister tried to persuade you to go to the hospital.

8. I accept that in those circumstances you were acutely psychotic and afraid of what those people wanted to do to you, but they could not possibly have known - no one could have possibly known - what was going to happen.

9. Further, and in any event, I am required to arrive at the limiting term without taking into account your mental impairment.  Ms Auburn's submission relies fundamentally on the fact that your mental impairment was responsible for Jace's death, and that had you received assistance, that may not have occurred.  While that may be true with the benefit of hindsight, I cannot take it into account in setting the limiting term.

10. I do accept that you are remorseful.  I do accept that you are trying your best to recover from your mental illness.  However, in my view, if you had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to the offence of murder in the circumstances of this case, and excluding your mental impairment from consideration, there is no doubt that you would have been sentenced to a term of life imprisonment.  Jace was a vulnerable child, dependent on you in every way, deserving of your protection, and you intentionally killed him.  His manner of death was brutal and terribly violent.  Your limited prior criminal record and plea of guilty are not factors which would result in a finding that it is 'clearly unjust' to impose a term of imprisonment other than a term of life imprisonment.

11. Accordingly, I set a limiting term of life imprisonment.  That term is to commence on the date of your arrest, being 27 April 2022.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

BF

Associate to the Hon Justice Forrester

5 MAY 2025