Court of Appeal

R v Seijbel-Chocmingkwan [2014] QCA 119 (13/0183) Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Martin J 27 May 2014

Full-text: QCA14-119.pdf


CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder and one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the first count and 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently for the second count – where the first conviction was declared to be a serious violent offence – where the applicant was separated from her husband (“Seijbel”) of 12 years – where the complainant was in a relationship with the Seijbel – where the applicant was on parole for assault at the time of the offending – where the applicant ran her vehicle twice into the back of the complainant’s stationary vehicle causing Seijbel to suffer bruising – where the applicant got out of her vehicle, reached back into it to get a knife, then ran after and attacked the complainant by stabbing and strangling her – where the applicant kicked the complainant’s daughter in the face when she came to help – where a neighbour intervened ending the attack – where the applicant stabbed herself with a biro causing superficial injuries – where the complainant’s injuries were serious, remaining in hospital for three days – where the complainant continues to experience – where the applicant had mental health problems but was found by the Mental Health Court to be of sound mind at the time of the offences and fit to stand trial – where the applicant contends that the learned primary judge did not take into account her mental health problems – where the applicant submits that the learned primary judge did not make a finding as to premeditation – where the applicant contends that the offences were not premeditated – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive