Legal Research
Cases
Wentworth v Graham

Wentworth v Graham

Case [2002] NSWSC 397 7 May 2002

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mental Health

Post-natal Depression

Psychosis

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. POPE [2002] NSWSC 397

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70107 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 7 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 7 May 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
POPE, Karen Diana

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P.S. Dare
Off: P. O'Donnell

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Off: Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - infanticide - plea of guilty - prior history of severe mental illness - post-natal depression and psychosis - limited culpability - extensive post-offence psychiatric treatment - further supervising by Department of Community Services - protection of community.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Children & Young Persons (Care & Protection) Act 1998
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A. Crim. R. 81
Letteri (unreported, CAA 18 March 1992)
Engert (1995) 84 A. Crim R. 67

DECISION: The offender is to enter into a bond for a period of three years subject to the conditions concerning call up, good behaviour and residential address. There is a further condition requiring the offender, for the duration of the bond or such lesser period as the supervising officer may think fit, to submit herself to the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and to obey the reasonable directions of that Service, in particular concerning medical and psychiatric assistance to be provided and concerning compliance with the registered care plan. It will be necessary for the offender to report to the relevant Probation and Parole Office at Parratmatta within 14 days of 7 May 2002.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
criminal division

GREG JAMES, J.

TUESDAY 7 MAY 2002

No. 70107 of 2001

REGINA v. KAREN DIANA POPE

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Karen Diana Pope has pleaded guilty before me to one count of infanticide, that being an offence under s.22A of the Crimes Act 1900 punishable, as for manslaughter, by a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment. That plea has been accepted by the Crown in full discharge of an indictment, which also included a count of murder, to which count Mrs. Pope had pleaded not guilty.

2 The Crown has accepted the plea on the basis that at the time of the acts or omissions causing death, she was suffering from a post-natal condition caused by the birth of the child which, in the context of her pre-existing psychiatric illnesses, affected the balance of her mind to the extent that in wilfully causing the death of the child she was not guilty of murder but guilty of the crime of infanticide. I shall deal with the matter on that basis.

3 The consequence of those pleas is that I am, therefore, to sentence her for the crime of infanticide. That crime was committed on her child, Rachael Victoria Audrey Pope, who was, at the time, aged 12 weeks, in circumstances that, because of the mental condition of Mrs. Pope, have not been able, despite conscientious investigation, to be precisely detailed, but where Mrs. Pope…

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 Wentworth v Graham

Details

AGLC: Wentworth v Graham [2002] NSWSC 397
Case: [2002] NSWSC 397
Decision Date: 7 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wentworth was charged with the offence of infanticide, having pleaded guilty to the charge. The respondent, Graham, the mother of the deceased child, brought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing that it was too lenient. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Wentworth was appropriate, taking into account the mitigating factors of his prior history of severe mental illness, the post-natal depression and psychosis he suffered at the time of the offence, and his extensive post-offence psychiatric treatment and supervision. The court also considered the need for protection of the community in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the lower court had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors, including Wentworth's mental health history and the post-offence treatment he had received. The court held that the lower court had not erred in principle or made any errors of fact that would warrant interference with the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence of imprisonment for a term of five years, with a non-parole period of three years, was appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for protection of the community. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court held that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account the mitigating factors of Wentworth's prior history of severe mental illness, the post-natal depression and psychosis he suffered at the time of the offence, and his extensive post-offence psychiatric treatment and supervision. The court also considered the need for protection of the community in determining the appropriate sentence. The sentence imposed by the lower court was affirmed, and Wentworth's appeal was dismissed.

Orders