//
[2025] QDC 191
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of Queensland
2025-12-09
Original judgment source is linked above.
Witnesses Providing Testimony by Audio or Audio-Visual _Link_8
The Defendant Giving and Calling Evidence and the Recorded Statements of the _Defendant_8
_Evidence of Other People that Visited the Defendant's Home and Other Potential Witnesses_13
The Interview of 12 November 2015 (Further Observations)16
The Visit to Priceline Chemist On 24 July 201517
The Emotional Context of the Events Of 24 July 201517
Other Observed or Described Behaviour of the Defendant17
A. Investigative Conduct (DSC Mitchell Lollback and DSC Roxanne Eather)38
B. Medical Evidence and Injuries (Dr Shittu, Dr Patten and Dr True)38
The Mechanism that was the Source of the Grievous Bodily Harm42
Could Any Pre-Existing Organic Condition Possibly Explain the Subdural Haemorrhage?43
Could Any Pre-Existing Injury Possibly Explain the Subdural Haemorrhage? 43
In order to protect the privacy of the defendant's victim, pseudonyms have been used throughout this judgement.
[1] Over four weeks, commencing on 19 September 2025, the defendant stood trial before me, sitting without a jury, on a one-count indictment:
That on the twenty-fourth day of July 2015 at Caboolture in the State of Queensland, [BLIGHT] unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to [ZOE].
[2] Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty.[1] Having done so, I was required to determine if she was guilty or not guilty of the charged offence.
Before the defendant can be found guilty of the charged offence of grievous bodily harm, [2] the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, on the date and at the place identified, that:
1. The defendant did grievous bodily harm to Zoe; AND
[3] The term "grievous bodily harm" is defined in the Criminal Code (Qld), and means, relevantly in this case, "any bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would endanger or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health".[3]
[4] Though Zoe apparently had many other injuries, including fractures to her skull, the particular injury relied upon by the prosecution was a subdural haemorrhage.[4]
[5] It was alleged by the prosecution that the defendant had caused such injury through deliberate force applied to her seven-month-old baby, Zoe, whilst Zoe was alone in her care.
[6] Given the complainant, Zoe, was only seven months old, the directions contained in division 1A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) were not applicable.
[7] As I am conducting the trial as a judge sitting without a jury, I have been required to apply, so far as is practical, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury.[5]
[8] If a statute or the common law requires information, a warning or an instruction, to be given to the jury in particular circumstances, I must take that requirement into account if those circumstances arose in the course of this trial.[6]
[9] I may make any findings or give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury, and any finding or verdict of mine has for all purposes, the same effect as a finding or verdict of a jury.[7] I am obliged to give reasons for my judgement, which must include the principles of law that I have applied, the finding of facts I have relied upon, and the processes of reasoning by which I have reached my verdict.[8]
[10] The observations of his Honour Justice McKechnie in The State of Western Australia v Bell [No 3][9] are instructive as to the deliberative approach taken by a judge who sits without a jury. I have respectfully followed such deliberative approach in arriving at my concluding verdict. There is value in setting out his Honour's observations:
"A jury is required to return a verdict if it is able to achieve unanimity. A jury is not required to provide reasons for its verdict.
A judge is required to set out the principles of law that have been applied and the findings of fact that have been made...
Reaching judgement is an evolving process. Testimonies of witnesses are absorbed and initial impressions formed. These initial impressions are then subjected to analysis and comparison with other testimony and physical evidence. Initial impressions may be altered as the trial proceeds and more evidence becomes available.
When the trial has finished a judge embarks upon reflective consideration. Principles of law are identified all revisited, and the evidence evaluated against these principles. The submissions of counsel are important in highlighting their respective cases and are given careful analysis.
A jury has the inestimable advantage of discussion and sharing of views and opinions. Twelve people can share with each other their impressions and views, acknowledge contrary opinions, and alter their stance accordingly.
A judge has no such equivalent but works in the solitude of chambers. A judge can discuss the case with no one lest the judge be subject to unconscious influence. For that, among other reasons, it is important for a judge to take time to reflect on the evidence and to test possible theories, and assumptions, against the framework of legal principles.
The physical act of writing and explaining the reasons for a decision also concentrates the mind. Errors of reasoning may be identified and corrected.
[11] As the defendant was not legally represented, I was obliged to give her sufficient information to enable her to have a fair trial.[10] Whilst this extended to informing the defendant about particular rights and procedures available, as well as explaining the advantages and disadvantages of exercising such rights or such procedures, I explained to her that I could not provide her with advice. I ensured that my function remained judicial and did not provide her with any advice.
[12] Such an approach coincided with the observations of responsibility made by his Honour Justice Brennan in MacPherson:
"...[W]hether any and what advice should be given to an accused, depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and of the particular accused. What can be said is that if it is necessary to give any advice, the necessity arises from the judge's duty to ensure that the trial is fair. That duty does not require, indeed it is inconsistent with, advising an accused how to conduct his case; but it may require advice to an accused as to his rights in order that he may determine how to conduct his case."[11]
[13] My observations of the defendant through the course of the trial, were that she, with some guidance as to form, capably and competently constructed cross examination, including advancement of her own alternate case theories explaining observed injuries to Zoe.
[14] She presented a defence case and demonstrated again her capabilities in advancing her own alternate case theories explaining observed injuries to Zoe and attempting to cast doubt on the prosecution case theory.
The Presumption of Innocence, Burden and Standard of Proof
[15] The defendant was presumed to be innocent of the charge before me. This fundamental principle was applied throughout the trial and during my deliberations.
[16] The prosecution bore the onus of proving that the defendant was guilty of each and every essential element of the offence charged, and of every essential matter required to establish the defendant's criminal responsibility for the offence charged. There was no onus upon the defendant to prove any fact, let alone her innocence.
[17] The standard of proof required was proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof known to the law. It may be helpfully contrasted with the standard of proof required in a civil trial, that is, on the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof that was required here was beyond reasonable doubt, a much higher standard.
[18] In reaching my verdict I have considered the whole of the evidence. The evidence in this trial comprising the testimony of the witnesses (given from the witness box or via remote link) and other exhibits admitted as evidence before me. I also considered various facts formally admitted by the parties, which I took to be proven without requiring further evidence to be adduced. It was only this evidence, that is, the evidence as I have identified presented before me in the trial, upon which I reached my verdict.
[19] It was for me to decide what evidence I accepted or rejected and what weight I gave the evidence that I did accept. In doing so, I was required to consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence.
[20] I was aware that I may have accepted the whole of what a witness said, or only part of it, or none of it. The fact that I might not have accepted a portion of the evidence of a witness did not mean that I was required necessarily to reject the whole of that witness's evidence.
[21] It was for me to decide whether a witness was telling the truth and accurately recalled a fact or the facts upon which he or she had testified.
[23] Not everything I heard in the courtroom was evidence. For example, the submissions, questions or comments made by counsel for the prosecution or by the defendant were not evidence. A suggestion made during either the examination or cross examination of a witness was not evidence of the thing suggested unless the witness accepted the suggestion to be true. The same applied to questions asked by various police officers during conversations or recorded interviews with the defendant. A question or suggestion made by such an officer meant nothing unless the defendant had agreed with it.
[24] The opening statements made by the counsel for the prosecution and the defendant, and their closing statements were not evidence.
[25] Prior to the commencement of the trial, and indeed on repeated occasions during the course of the trial, I considered applications for adjournment of the trial. Ex tempore judgments were provided on each occasion and the applications for adjournment refused. Importantly, material was presented before me in support of such applications. That material included information regarding the defendant's mental health and welfare at various times. Some of the material included assumed facts regarding events leading up to and including Zoe's treatment in the relevant hospitals, upon which conclusions were drawn by physicians. Some of the material included background information relating to the defendant, Zoe and other family members. Whilst such material was relevant to dispose of the adjournment applications, I have carefully ignored any such material in determining my verdict. Such material was not evidence for the purpose of the trial.
[26] I have acted impartially and dispassionately in deciding my verdict. I have dismissed all feelings of sympathy or prejudice, whether it be sympathy for or prejudice against the defendant or anyone else connected with this matter, including Zoe. No such emotion has played any part in my verdict.
[27] I have not otherwise considered any outside information or other outside influence. I have not made my own inquiries or investigations about the case, or anyone connected with it. I have had only regard to the testimony of the witnesses before me and the exhibits tendered and ensured that no external influence played any part in my deliberations.
[28] I also applied the following principles of law which were necessary because of the nature of some of the evidence or because of procedural choices made by the defendant. These are directions I would ordinarily give a jury in a case such as this, and so I directed myself accordingly.
[29] I was provided with transcripts of the recordings tended into evidence. The transcripts were provided to me for my assistance and were not evidence. The evidence was the sounds and vision that I heard and saw. I had not noticed whether any of the recordings had been edited. I did not speculate about such editing, and particularly did not draw any inference adverse to the defendant merely because irrelevant material may have not been placed before me.
Witnesses Providing Testimony by Audio or Audio-Visual Link.
[30] Some of the witnesses were permitted to provide their testimony from a location other than the courtroom by audio or audio-visual link.[12] I did not give that person's evidence any more or less weight, nor regard such evidence as having greater or lesser probative value, nor drew any adverse inference against a party to the proceeding, especially the defendant, because that person gave the evidence by audio link or audio-visual link. I treated and assessed their evidence in the same way as I would have if those witnesses had given their evidence in person.
The Defendant Giving and Calling Evidence and the Recorded Statements of the Defendant.
[31] The defendant did not have to give evidence or call other people to give evidence on her behalf, or otherwise adduce evidence. That the defendant did so in this trial did not mean that she assumed a responsibility of proving her innocence. The burden of proof did not shift to her.
[32] The evidence she called, was added to the evidence presented by the prosecution.
[33] Evidence was presented in the prosecution case regarding statements made by the defendant to others. These included statements made to a neighbour, medical practitioners, a social worker, and police officers regarding the events of 24 July 2015 and other events in which Zoe may have been injured.
[34] I was entitled to have regard to all that evidence for the purposes of deciding whether it gave rise to a reasonable doubt in my mind as to her guilt.
[35] I understood that in this criminal trial it was not a question of making a choice between the evidence presented by the prosecution's key witnesses and the evidence presented by the defendant.
[36] Where, as here, there were accounts from the defendant in evidence, usually one of three possible results would follow. This was a logical pathway of reasoning that I applied in arriving at my verdict.
[37] I considered whether the relevant account of the defendant presented in this trial was credible and reliable, and whether it provided a satisfying answer to the prosecution's case. In circumstances were I to reach such a conclusion, I was required to find the defendant not guilty.
[38] Were I not satisfied that the relevant account of the defendant was credible and reliable, I was required to consider whether such an account might be true. In circumstances were I to reach such a conclusion, I was required to find the defendant not guilty.
[39] Were I not satisfied that the relevant account of the defendant was credible and reliable or might be true, I was then required to put such evidence to one side. I was then required to be careful not to jump from non-acceptance of the relevant account of the defendant to an automatic conclusion of guilt, and importantly, I was then required to return to such evidence that I did accept and determine whether on that evidence I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charged offence.
[40] The prosecution relied upon relevant accounts given by the defendant to others to prove that she had the sole care of Zoe at the time she suffered the injury causing the subdural hematoma. I was required to be satisfied that such statements relied upon by the prosecution were made by the defendant. In this trial, that was an uncontroversial proposition. I was required to be satisfied that the relevant statement was, in fact, true before I could use such evidence in determining my verdict.
[41] I was permitted to find facts that were directly proven by the evidence or that were indirectly proven by way of inference from other established facts.
[42] Although I was permitted to draw inferences from the existence of other facts, I was required only to draw reasonable inferences, and any such inferences drawn were required to be based on the facts that I had found proven. There was required to be a logical and rational connection between the facts I found established by the evidence any deduction or conclusion I reached. I was not permitted to engage in speculation or conjecture to fill any gaps in the evidence. I was not permitted to use intuition or guesswork.
[43] The prosecution case against the defendant rested substantially upon circumstantial evidence, and so a verdict of guilty could not be returned unless the circumstances were such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the defendant. In this case, it was necessary that proof of the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not only a rational inference, but also that it was the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable to be drawn.[13] If there was any rational hypothesis consistent with innocence then the defendant was entitled to be acquitted.
[44] In considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence were to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there was an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence.[14] The evidence was not to be looked at in a piece meal fashion.[15]
[45] It was not incumbent upon the defendant to establish that some other inference, consistent with innocence, should have been reasonably drawn from the evidence. Indeed, it was not even incumbent upon the defendant to prove any particular facts that would have tended to support such an inference. At all times it remained for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant for the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was required to exclude any rational hypothesis consistent with innocence that reasonably arose on the evidence.
[46] Several witnesses were called to give opinion evidence as expert witnesses. An expert witness is permitted to express his or her opinion upon matters within their specialised area of expertise. However, it did not follow that I must except the opinion expressed. I was entitled to accept or reject any such opinion expressed as I saw fit and to give such weight to the expressed opinion of an expert witness as I considered should be given, having regard in each case to the qualifications and experience of the relevant expert witness in his or her specialised field, whether I considered them impartial or partial to either side, whether and to what extent their opinion was challenged, and importantly, the extent to which their expressed opinion accorded with whatever other facts I had found proven. As common sense dictated where an expressed opinion was based upon facts that I was not satisfied had been proven then such opinion expressed by the expert was of little value.
[47] The defendant was charged with an offence of doing grievous bodily harm to Zoe.
[48] The prosecution lead evidence of other injuries potentially occasioned to Zoe prior to 24 July 2015.
[49] The relevant injuries were identified as follows:
(iii) Fractures to back of sixth and seventh rib.
(iv) Fractures to left tibia and fibula[16].
[50] This evidence was contended to be lead on three bases; first, as "propensity evidence" at common law; second, to exclude any competing rational hypothesis consistent with innocence, specifically that Zoe was harmed by her older sibling, Anna [18]; and third, as "relationship evidence" at common law or in statutory terms, the "history of a domestic relationship" between the defendant and Zoe [19].
[51] Except for the fracture to Zoe's right femur, the prosecution alleged that the defendant was the author of such injuries, and it demonstrated the defendant's propensity or tendency to deliberately harm her infant daughter. It was contended to make it then more likely that the defendant committed the offence with which she was charged, and to exclude any suggestion that Anna was the author of her younger sibling's injury.
[52] As observed in BBH v The Queen[20], a question may arise whether such propensity or tendency evidence is a link in the chain of proof of the offence charged, and whether, if it is, the evidence should not be acted upon unless it amounts to proof of the facts of the alleged propensity beyond reasonable doubt. I had determined, in the way it was relied upon by the prosecution, I was required only to act upon such evidence if the facts of the alleged propensity, and particularly that the defendant was the author of the relevant associated injury, were established beyond reasonable doubt.
[53] I concluded that I was required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for deliberately causing the relevant injury relied upon by the prosecution, and if I was not, I was required to completely disregard the evidence.
[54] It was not enough for me to consider that the defendant, having been responsible for such a deliberate act in harming her child, was the sort of person who might or even would commit the offence as alleged before me. I was also required to conclude that the similarities between an earlier deliberate act and the act causing the grievous bodily harm was so strikingly similar that I was able to exclude coincidence beyond reasonable doubt.
[55] The third basis invited me to embark on a similar process of reasoning. That is, if I were satisfied that the defendant had deliberately harmed Zoe on a previous occasion, it made more intelligible the circumstances where it was alleged that the defendant had harmed her infant daughter in her care in a serious way. The relevance of the evidence, used in this way, was to suggest an enhanced likelihood that the defendant had deliberately harmed Zoe on 24 July 2015.
[56] I concluded that this reasoning was so closely connected with that of propensity or tendency that I was required to be satisfied of the facts of the alleged propensity, and particularly that the defendant was the author of the relevant associated injury, were established beyond reasonable doubt, before it could be used in the way advocated for by the prosecution, and if I was not, I was required to completely disregard the evidence.
[57] The parties were enjoined in the position that the fracture to Zoe's right femur was a result of accidental harm caused to Zoe, when attempting to place her in a carrying pouch. That evidence was presented before me to exclude any suspicion that the defendant had deliberately harmed Zoe on such an occasion. This was particularly relevant, where the treating physicians attending to Zoe on 24 July 2015 had observed such an injury and regarded it as significant. I, in no way, had regard to the evidence of this injury in supporting a contention that the defendant was guilty of the offence.
[58] Evidence was presented of the visibly distressed condition of the defendant following Zoe's compromised health on 24 July 2015. That evidence was not permitted to be, nor was used by me, to infer that observed condition was an acknowledgement that the defendant was the author of injuries occasioned to Zoe.
[59] This observed condition was a piece of circumstantial evidence that was permitted to be used in support of any rational hypotheses consistent with innocence, and what weight I gave to such evidence was a matter for my consideration.
[60] Evidence was presented before me to establish that the defendant was a person who was caring toward her own children and the children of others.
[61] To the extent that this evidence was to establish that the defendant was a person of good character, I was cognisant of the following principles. This evidence was part of the evidence to be taken into account by me in deciding whether I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of her guilt. The influence that this evidence had upon me was a matter for my consideration. It was relevant in two respects.
[62] The first was in considering whether a person with the kind of reputation sworn to by witnesses would do the act alleged by the prosecution.
[63] The second was in considering the credibility of the evidence of the defendant presented before me including statements that she had made to others which are in evidence. Critically, I considered whether this evidence of her reputation added weight to such evidence.
[64] Such evidence of reputation, like any other evidence, became part of the framework within which I arrived at my determined verdict. It was considered in the context of the other evidence that I did accept.
Evidence of Other People that Visited the Defendant's Home and Other Potential Witnesses.
[65] Throughout the course of the trial, I heard reference to persons other than those who were called to give evidence, that might have been able to give some relevant evidence, on some aspect of the case. Specific examples include the guests invited to the defendant's birthday party on 12 July 2015, and Ryan Wessling and Nicholas Wessling who may have attended the home of the defendant in July 2015.
[66] The documented admissions[21] detailed various potential witnesses who also may have provided relevant evidence to the trial proceedings.
[67] I did not speculate about what others who were not called might have said, if they had been called. I acted based on the evidence that was called in the trial, and only that evidence.
[68] The documented admissions were accepted as proof of the relevant facts contained within the admissions and no adverse inference was drawn against the defendant from the fact of such admissions having been made.
Chronology of events leading up to the admission of Zoe to the Caboolture Hospital on 24 July 2015
[69] The defendant participated in interviews with the police on 24 July 2015[22] and 12 November 2015[23]. The defendant also participated in a walk-through reenactment on 27 July 2015[24]. These interviews, supplemented by other evidence presented before me, provided a useful chronology of events leading up to Zoe's admission at the Caboolture Hospital.
[70] Zoe was one of twins. The defendant lost Zoe's twin at seven to nine weeks into the pregnancy.
[71] Zoe was born on 13 December 2014. Zoe was a premature birth at the Redcliffe Hospital and remained in the special care unit until mid-January 2015.
[72] Just prior to Zoe arriving home, her parents began experiencing difficulties with the owner of the home they were renting. The air conditioner unit broke down and despite minor repairs broke down again after Zoe had returned home.
[73] The defendant was in contact with a child health nurse and at six weeks of age, determined to bottle feed Zoe, to calm her reflux.
[74] In late February/mid-March, the defendant discussed child settling techniques with the child health nurse, as Zoe was "just one of those cry-babies, she just needs someone there...instead of getting cranky with her, I just put her in her room".
[75] In early/mid-June 2015 (four to six weeks prior), the defendant had left Zoe playing on a blue mat, whilst she went to the laundry. The defendant heard screaming. The defendant informed the police that Anna (her two-year-old daughter) had picked Zoe up and dropped Zoe on the tiled floor. Zoe had a "bump" on her head. Zoe settled and her parents just kept "an eye on her".
[76] In late June/early July, the defendant and her family received an eviction notice. This led to stress, sleep issues and anxiety symptoms for the defendant.
[77] On the weekend of 17 July 2015 to 19 July 2015, the family travelled to the Gold Coast. Zoe had begun showing signs of teething, had stomach pain, and was unsettled. Zoe did not sleep well on the Friday evening.
[78] On the Saturday afternoon, the family went on the Aquaduck on the Gold Coast. Zoe was unsettled. As the defendant went to sit down on the Aquaduck, Zoe's right leg was bent backwards in her carrier. Zoe was already crying. Zoe's father took Zoe from the Aquaduck. Zoe settled and went to sleep 10 minutes later. That evening Zoe was unsettled. She was given teething gel, Nurofen, gripe water, and bottle. She then slept through. Her parents noted that she was "grizzly" when her leg was touched.
[79] Zoe woke at 4:00 am on Sunday morning, settled again after 10 minutes, finally waking at around 8:00 or 9:00 am. The family spent the day at Dreamworld and Zoe was described as happy, giggling and smiling.
[80] On the Monday morning, 20 July 2015, the defendant noticed that Zoe's right lower leg was swollen and rang her local doctor. Zoe was examined and sent for an x-ray and an ultrasound at Moreton Bay radiology. The defendant was told that both the x-ray and ultrasound showed no issues.
[81] The defendant was up all night with Anna on 21 July 2015.
[82] On the Wednesday morning, 22 July 2015, the defendant noticed that the swelling to Zoe's leg had moved to the upper right thigh. The defendant returned to her local doctor, Dr Broadbridge. The defendant was told that there was some soft tissue damage.
[83] On Thursday, 23 July 2015, the defendant's partner had a court hearing regarding disputes with the owner of their home. Zoe was unsettled throughout the day in the evening. Both children had diarrhoea. That evening the family visited the home of friends, Joseph and Heather Morrisey. Zoe remained unsettled and refused to eat properly. She later slept through the night.
[84] The defendant's partner left for work at 5:40am on Friday, 24 July 2015. Anna woke at 6:00 am. Anna was vomiting. The defendant woke Zoe up at 8:45 am, changed her, and gave her Nurofen and water.
[85] The children were in the sole care of the defendant on this day and no other person attended the family home.
[86] That morning the defendant took both girls in a pram to the chemist at Central Lakes.
[87] They returned home before 1:00 pm. The defendant had a scheduled meeting with her realtor at 1:30 pm. The defendant took both girls with her to look at the rental property. Zoe was asleep in the pram, and the defendant left her in the garage to the home being inspected, while Zoe slept.
[88] They returned home again at around 2:00 pm. Zoe was sweaty and had diarrhoea. The defendant placed Zoe securely within her bouncer on the couch surrounded by two poufs. The positioning of the bouncer and the way the defendant carried and then secured her child within the bouncer were captured in the walk-through reenactment. The defendant showed the police that she carried Zoe with her arms outstretched and her hands either side of Zoe's chest. Zoe was strapped into the bouncer. The top of the bouncer sat at a height level to that of the poufs either side of it.
[89] The defendant went to the study to finish applications for renting property. The study was adjacent to the lounge within which the couch was situated. Zoe was crying and the defendant thought "please don't cry, I've got so much to do". The defendant ignored Zoe's crying.
[90] "Em's starting to get really agitated because I'm not paying attention to her. She's throwing a tantrum. She's throwing things around and running around and doing her usual thing to get her attention ... and I'm rousing at her and Zoe is still crying, like, you know seriously, you two just stop. I'm trying, I've got the phone ringing, I've got people ringing bout houses, I'm trying to do house applications".
[91] The defendant informed the police in her interview and the walkthrough re-enactment, that Anna fell from the pouf on the lounge to the floor. The direction that Anna fell was demonstrated by the defendant in the walk-through reenactment. On my view of the demonstration, it left open the possibility, on the defendant's recount, that Anna fell over Zoe before landing on the ground.
[92] The defendant checked on Zoe after attending to Anna. Zoe was pale, her eyes were crossed, and she was unresponsive. The defendant picked Zoe up and shook her gently to try to get a response. This was demonstrated by the defendant in the walk-through reenactment. The defendant held Zoe with her arms outstretched and hands either side of Zoe's chest, and briefly and, on my view of the demonstration, gently shook her. The defendant described Zoe as being "bobbly headed".
[93] Detective Sergeant Windsor confirmed that the demonstration of shaking provided by the defendant during the earlier interview of 24 July 2015, "was something along the lines of just trying to wake her up...just very small as I'm moving my hands now...small movements to and fro"[25].
[94] The defendant placed Zoe's face under the kitchen tap to try to get a response from her.
[95] The defendant took Zoe to her neighbour's home. The defendant was visibly distressed, and Zoe was pale and breathing irregularly[26]. The detail of the first aid provided by Ms Stringfellow is dealt with later in this judgment.
[96] Ambulance officers attended and Zoe was taken to the Caboolture Hospital. The journey to the hospital took minutes.[27] Neither officer performed CPR, and the management of Zoe was orthodox. The defendant provided a similar version of events to the ambulance officers, that she had discovered Zoe in compromised health at a time that Anna was "all over the infant".[28] The defendant informed the ambulance officers that she had shaken Zoe in an upright position after discovery.[29] The ambulance officers did not see any visible signs of external injury to Zoe, although fractures can be unseen until x-ray.[30]
The Interview of 12 November 2015 (Further Observations)
[97] The police interview of 12 November 2015 was unimpressive. The police officers detailed evidence gathered from medical practitioners using complex medical terminology that I am unsure that they understood. Their palpable frustration with the defendant when she corrected the police officers and informed them of the meaning of the medical terminology used, was unreasonable and combative.
[98] I accepted that the defendant repeated her recount of the incident at the Aquaduck in consistent terms.
[99] The defendant reported of other incidents in which Zoe may have been harmed.
[100] About a month before Zoe's presentation at the hospital, Anna had moved Zoe from a rug and dropped her on a tiled surface. The back of Zoe's head hit the tiles, and she had a red lump. No medical attention was sought, and Zoe was fine.
[101] Zoe had vomited on the defendant. The defendant and Zoe had stripped down whilst her partner cleaned the kitchen floor. As the defendant was carrying Zoe, she slipped on the kitchen tiles taking the brunt of the fall on her elbow. The defendant did not think that Zoe had hit her head. The defendant's partner provided evidence that Zoe had hit her head at the back left side leaving a bump.[31] No medical attention was sought as Zoe was alert and fine. The exhibited message of 22 May 2015[32], provided support for this account, where the defendant wrote, "my arm is caning a lot so we need to keep an eye on it in case I've dislocated it I wasn't worried about me I was trying to protect Zoe but I couldn't as well as I expected she hit her head".
[102] The ten-minute visit to Priceline Chemist was visually recorded.[33] The recording is time and date stamped, commencing at 11:01:47am on 24 July 2015. I have concluded that Zoe's presentation through that recording depicts a baby actively engaging and reacting to her surroundings without any discomfort. I accepted the observations of Ms Mossman, who served the defendant; Zoe was a happy and alert baby at that time.[34]
[103] I had no difficulty concluding that Zoe had not yet occasioned the traumatic head injuries seen upon presentation to the Caboolture Hospital. Critically, this restricts the period in which any event causing such injuries occurred.
The Emotional Context of the Events of 24 July 2015.
[104] The defendant described, in her recorded interviews and the walk-through reenactment, and I have accepted that there were, significant stressors upon her leading up to and including 24 July 2015. Both children were unwell on 24 July 2015. The defendant was managing the care of two very young children, whilst attempting to secure the family a new home. The later issue was time sensitive, and the defendant had expressed her concern that her family would be "homeless". There were also financial stressors, and her partner was experiencing challenges in his workplace.
[105] This evidence did not of itself prove that the defendant was likely to harm one of her children. It was relevant contextual evidence against which the other circumstantial evidence accepted by me was assessed.
Other Observed or Describes Behaviour of the Defendant.
[106] Evidence was presented before me of the defendant's reaction to stressors in the form of punching walls and furnishings in the home. The defendant, though not objecting to this evidence, belatedly raised her concerns that this evidence was led by the prosecution. There was a pre-trial hearing before another judge concerning the admissibility of each of the recorded statements made by the defendant. I determined to disregard this evidence, and it was not used in any way to arrive at my verdict.
[107] A set of instructions left on the family fridge was also exhibited.[35] The instructions listed "options for stress relief when either one of us are looking like things are becoming too much" and then had a list of alternate coping strategies for the defendant and her partner.
[108] Additionally, messages sent by the defendant[36] from late April 2015 express the defendant's frustrations with financial stress and home duties, and frustration and difficulties with Zoe.
[109] This evidence did not of itself prove that the defendant was likely to harm one of her children. It was relevant contextual evidence against which the other circumstantial evidence accepted by me was assessed.
[113] This evidence did not of itself prove that the defendant was likely to harm one of her children. It was relevant contextual evidence against which the other circumstantial evidence accepted by me was assessed.
[114] Dr Broadbridge confirmed that the defendant had presented to her on 4 June 2015 and 25 June 2015.[43] At the first appointment, the defendant reported that she was struggling with a challenging baby and the advice was to continue with the counselling. The defendant was provided with medication for the treatment of anxiety. At the second appointment, the defendant confirmed that she was continuing with counselling designed to support post-natal depression.[44]
[115] This evidence did not of itself prove that the defendant was likely to harm one of her children. It was relevant contextual evidence against which the other circumstantial evidence accepted by me was assessed.
[116] Various police officers conceded that they had not obtained either a statement from Dr McNeil or the ultrasound/radiology reports from Moreton Bay Radiology or footage from Moreton Bay Radiology (if it existed). The defendant contended that this would have demonstrated that Zoe was not seen with any injuries other than the injury to her right femur.
[117] Dr Broadbridge saw Zoe on both 20 July 2015 and 22 July 2015 and confirmed that she did not see any other injury. I accepted that Zoe was not seen with any injuries other than the injury to her right femur on 20 July 2015 and 22 July 2015.
[118] I had no regard to the evidence of the injury to her right femur, as supporting a contention that the defendant was guilty of the offence.
[119] The evidence did demonstrate that the defendant sought medical attention for Zoe in circumstances in which Zoe had been injured and demonstrated appropriate concern for the well-being of her infant daughter in such circumstances.
[120] Dr Broadbridge recalled that on 22 July 2015, the defendant indicated a preference to see her practice over attending the hospital, as "she mentioned that she did not want to take her baby to the hospital because she didn't want them thinking that she might have hurt her baby".[45] I have ignored this evidence for the purposes of determining my verdict and have not regarded the statement as any admission made by the defendant that she had or would have harmed her infant child Zoe.
[122] Dr Tresse was led by Dr Sean Clarke as part of the resuscitation team caring for Zoe on 24 July 2015.[48] Dr Tresse stated that she did not see any bruising, markings or scratches on Zoe in her "brief assessment".[49] She did see some "blood on her left shin" and "what looked like a deformed right upper thigh".[50]
[123] Dr Tresse thought that Zoe's CT scan was done within the hour that she arrived, and that Zoe arrived at around 4pm.[51] Dr Tresse opined that Zoe had arrived with a very low heart rate indicating that she had increased intracranial pressure. Treatment using hypertonic saline improved her heart rate, but her level of consciousness did not improve.[52] The information from the CT scan was relayed to the team and "the main feature that was relayed...was a large subdural haematoma".[53] An x-ray confirmed that the deformity to the right upper thigh was a femur fracture.[54]
[124] Dr Tresse recalled that Zoe's parents were told only that there was a brain bleed and right femur fracture. Dr Tresse did not accept that Zoe's parents were told that the brain bleed was connected to the fracture. [55] The bleeding around the femur fracture could cause low blood pressure anaemia, severe pain, and if left untreated, permanent deformity in her leg.[56]
[126] Zoe presented just after 4:10pm on 24 July 2015, and Dr Shittu was one of two Senior Specialists who lead a team of doctors in her treatment.[59] Dr Shittu lead the resuscitation team. Zoe was pale, breathing fast and shallow and not responding to any stimulus.[60] Zoe had a concerningly low heart rate.[61] Zoe's right pupil was not reacting to light, and she had a GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) of two.[62] Dr Shittu surmised that there was "pressure within her brain from the brain swelling or blood/fluid accumulating and pressing on the brain".[63] There was no outwards signs of injury, aside to her right thigh (it was swollen and deformed).[64]
[128] Dr Shittu confirmed that Zoe was sent for a CT scan at about 5:21pm, and he was not present for the scan.[67] The radiologist provided a verbal report to Dr Patten and the formal written report was provided later.[68] Dr Shittu confirmed that Zoe was discharged from the Caboolture Hospital at 7:46pm.[69]
[129] Dr Shittu accepted the limitation of his expertise in examining the CT scans, comparative to a radiologist or neurosurgeon.[70] On multiple occasions in evidence, Dr Shittu referred to a full body scan being conducted. I have concluded that Dr Shittu was mistaken in this view, and I have preferred the contemporary evidence of the radiological report[71] and the evidence of Dr Patten.
[130] Dr Shittu identified that the above image[72] was a scan from the Caboolture Hospital of Zoe's head. The scanned image included details that the image was time and date stamped (24 July 2015 5:29:45pm). The whitened area, in his opinion, evidenced of acute bleeding within "a couple of hours". The darkened area, in his opinion, evidenced chronic bleeding that has "been there for some time". The midline of the brain had moved to the right, demonstrating the compression on the brain.[73]
[131] Dr Shittu identified that the above images[74] were scans from the Caboolture Hospital of Zoe's head. The scanned images included details that the images were both time and date stamped (24 July 2015 6:00:45pm). Dr Shittu described two fractures; from the left parietal bone, crossing the suture to the right parietal bone and a horizontal fracture going across the right parietal through to the temporal area.[75]
[132] The defendant provided information of two incidents involving Zoe. A month prior to her presentation, Zoe's sister had dropped her, and Zoe hit her head on the floor, there was some swelling to the back of Zoe's head and no medical assistance was sought.[76] Earlier on the day of presentation, the defendant had heard Anna fall and gone to see what had happened. Zoe was in the bouncer, breathing fast and unresponsive and the defendant quickly sought medical attention.[77]
[133] There was no causative link between the injury to Zoe's leg and the injury to her brain.[78] Dr Shittu opined that the significant force required to fracture the skull and cause bleeding, combined with the immobility of Zoe, lead him to conclude that the injuries were non-accidental, that is, not self-inflicted.[79] Dr Shittu regarded the continued pressure upon Zoe's brain as life threatening, as the brain would expand down to compress into the stem containing the areas responsible for breathing and heart beating, and Zoe would die.[80]
[134] Dr Shittu was not informed of any blood clotting disorder or sodium deficiency disorder suffered by Zoe, nor of any history of a "brain bleed at birth", such information was not provided to the treating doctors by the defendant or her partner.[81] Dr Shittu did not accept that pressure on the brain could have resulted in skull fractures.[82]
[136] Dr Clarke was responsible in managing the airway team in the treatment of Zoe.[85] Zoe's level of consciousness was decreased, and she had an obvious deformity to her right leg.[86] Otherwise, there was no outwards signs of injury.[87] Dr Clarke confirmed, with reference to his notes, that the only CT scans performed were of Zoe's head/neck and abdomen.[88]
[137] Dr Clarke confirmed that the preference was to stabilise the injury, rather than doing further investigations, so that the patient is at the right facility to get the right critical intervention, and the Caboolture Hospital did not have any neurosurgery.[89]
[138] Dr Clarke confirmed his experience in reviewing and interpreting CT scans.[90] In his opinion the CT scan showed subdural bleeding (between the skull and the brain) and an associated skull fracture. Dr Clarke was certain that there was acute new blood, and there was the potential of old bleeding or that may have been ongoing bleeding. There were two different colours of the blood, and that might indicate ongoing bleeding or an old bleed and then a new bleed on top of that.[91] Dr Clarke stated that a radiologist would be better able to give a more detailed opinion on this issue.[92] Dr Clarke accepted that it is possible for an initial bleed to commence bleeding again ("for an old bleed to start bleeding again"), but opined that here there was an acute fracture overlying the bleeding and the swelling of the brain was new, consistent with a trauma injury.[93] Dr Clarke stated that the skull fracture required external force.[94]
[139] Dr Clarke confirmed that in his opinion the subdural bleeding was life threatening and without treatment, death was the most likely outcome.[95]
[140] The tendered CT scans of the abdomen included details that the images were both time and date stamped (24 July 2015 5:18pm).[96]
[141] Dr Patton obtained his medical degree in 1971 and from 2006 he was a staff paediatrician at the Caboolture Hospital.[97]
[143] Dr Patten opined that Zoe presented with evidence of increased cranial pressure, which was surmised from her severe depressed conscious state, slow pulse rate and the dilation of her pupil on the right side. That later observed condition indicated that intra cranial contents had pushed across to the extent where the nerve had been squashed meaning the pupil did not work on that side.[100]
[144] The defendant provided Dr Patten with a history of events from that day. The defendant informed Dr Patten that she had been in a separate room when she heard Zoe's sister cry and only then went into the room to find Zoe pale and unresponsive.[101]
[145] The CT scans conducted at the Caboolture Hospital revealed that Zoe had a subdural haemorrhage of mixed density on the left side. It suggested that there was an acute bleed but also elements of bleeding before that. Dr Patten opined that the appearance was that the blood within that space had occurred at different times rather than "all in one go".[102] There was significant swelling of the brain tissue, and the left front and parietal part of the brain had crossed the midline and was pushing down towards the lower part on the base of the brain.[103]
[146] Dr Patten agreed that the CT scan of the head included the neck, and the CT scan of the abdomen had revealed a fracture of the right leg. Dr Patten agreed that there was no evidence of neck injury or outside trauma apart from the leg.[104] Dr Patton considered any representation that blood had gone from the femur fracture to the brain was illogical.[105]
[147] In July 2015, Dr Sekar was a junior doctor in her second year of placement in the paediatric training program.[106]
[148] The defendant had provided a history of what happened to Zoe to Dr Sekar. The defendant represented that Zoe had been crying and unsettled, and she had gone to another room. The defendant returned to the room when she heard the sound of Anna falling. When she came into the room, she noticed that Zoe was pale, slumped over to her side, and unresponsive. She informed Dr Sekar that she had run cold water over Zoe's head and shaken her "a little bit to rouse her" and told Dr Sekar that she had assumed Anna had fallen from the couch.[107]
[149] In July 2015, Dr Shetty has specialist training in radiology and practiced both overseas and within Australia since 1993.[108] Dr Shetty specialised in paediatric radiology in 2007, completing his exams in 2009. Dr Shetty was employed as the consultant paediatric radiologist with Lady Cilento from that time. [109] In paediatrics there can be a variety of differential diagnosis comparative to age, unlike in adults, and the interpretation and mechanisms involved in injury are dependent upon the age of the patient.[110]
[151] Dr Shetty referred to relevant CT images (extraction of Exhibit 14.1 above) and opined that they revealed haemorrhage in the subdural space on the left side containing a mixture of hyperdense blood.[113] The images further revealed that the brain parenchyma had been pushed downwards as well as towards the right side. This midline shift caused a lot of mass effect giving rise to a lot of pressure building up. The images also revealed asymmetry in the ventricles because of the mass effect pushing on them. Dr Shetty opined that the longer this mass effect remained, the more damage was being done to the brain parenchyma and underlying structures.[114]
[152] Dr Shetty opined that the fractures in Zoe's skull were due to some direct impact, which could have been a fall or direct impact with anything.[115] The fractures across the central suture could have been caused by the one direct impact and it is difficult to ascertain where along the fracture line the impact occurred.[116] The fracture in the parietal bone was again the result of some direct impact and likely close in time to the first impact.[117] The fractures possibly were caused by one coincidental impact, but it would have to be a big impact.[118]
[153] Dr Shetty identified through the above image taken through the horizontal plane, an area of scalp swelling (red arrow), he associated with the fracture, which suggested a more acute injury, within hours or a day or so.[119]
[155] Dr Shetty referred to x-rays of Zoe's chest taken on 25 July 2015. There was a fracture at the front left of the seventh rib.[122] It is difficult to age fractures, and he estimated that the injury was within seven to ten days but more than one or two days.[123] There was an older fracture at the front right tenth rib, and he estimated that the injury was within two to three weeks and more than two weeks.[124] Dr Shetty identified healing rib fractures at the back of the sixth and seventh ribs through x-rays taken on 28 July 2015.[125] Dr Shetty opined that healing indicated that the fractures were over a few days old.[126]
[156] Dr Shetty referred to the skeletal survey x-rays taken on 28 July 2015. There was a change in contour to the left tibia and fibula, with periosteal reaction or early callus formation, indicating an age of about two weeks or so.[127] Dr Shetty opined that such an injury was possibly caused by a direct impact or twisting.[128] As Zoe was immobile, Dr Shetty opined that the injury was possibly caused by a fall from a height, or from somebody hitting or twisting the leg.[129] Dr Shetty accepted that the force required to cause such fractures was much less than when compared to an adult and agreed that rough handling in pulling a child's leg through a pouch or pram was a possible explanation for the injuries.[130] There was a fracture to the humerus with again periosteal reaction, indicating an age of within fourteen days.[131] Dr Shetty opined that reasonable force beyond everyday handling was necessary to cause this injury, and explanations included direct impact or a fall.[132] There was a fracture to the left thigh bone with again periosteal reaction, indicating an age of within fourteen days.[133] Dr Shetty accepted that this injury could have occurred at the same time as the other leg fractures but considered the upper one looked slightly older than the lower one.[134]
[157] Dr Shetty considered that the fracture to the left rib was possibly, but unlikely (because of its age) caused by a layperson administering CPR on 24 July 2015, but the other fractures were too old.[135]
[158] The defendant called Dr Bursle, a specialist paediatric and neuroradiologist. Dr Bursle held degrees in Medical Science and Medicine and Surgery and had been a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology since 2014. Dr Bursle completed fellowships in paediatric imaging at the Mater Children's Hospital in 2012 and BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver in 2013.[136]
[159] Dr Bursle performed the second read on scans for Zoe on 28 July 2015; the original scans were from Caboolture Hospital and were taken between 5 to 6 pm on 24 July 2015.[137] As Dr Bursle explained "the times of the scans varied depending upon when the reconstructions were done... the initial CT scan is done, and you get multiple images of thin slice, and then reconstructions are done... so you reconstruct them in different planes so you can see the images in multiple different planes, and they get a slightly different time on them, and this was all done at Caboolture Hospital".[138] That reconstruction can be done automatically or manually by the radiographer, but will record the date and time of creation of the reconstructed image.[139]
[160] Dr Bursle referred to the above CT scan of Zoe[140] which included details that the image was time and date stamped (24 July 2015 5:29:45pm). The image revealed that Zoe had a subdural haemorrhage containing areas of both high and low density, and that the brain had swelling or ischemia.[141] In relation to the differing densities, literature suggested aging of blood products is not accurately done from such a scan, but the swelling in the brain suggested an acute component.[142]
[161] Dr Bursle agreed that there was a large subdural haemorrhage over the left cerebral hemisphere and then further thin hyper dense subdural haemorrhages that extended to the left tentorium and along the posterior falx cerebri (the membranes between the left/right and top/bottom of the brain).[143]
[162] Professor Gole was a paediatric ophthalmologist with 40 years' experience until retirement in 2024, and from 2010 was the specialist consultant for both children's hospitals in Brisbane.[144] Professor Gole was appointed and continued to be an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland Medical School.[145]
[163] Professor Gole explained that retinal haemorrhaging can be the result of eye disease or the shaking or impact of the head, where the backwards and forwards motion of the head causes the jelly inside of the eye to continue moving a tear the blood vessels at the surface of the retina.[146] Professor Gole clarified that it is the rapid deceleration of the head that causes this tearing force.[147] The number of and extent of bleeding inform the severity of force used.[148]
[164] Zoe's images were taken on 26 July 2015.[149] There was "lots" of flame shaped haemorrhage in the retina of the right eye, and the bleeding was widespread.[150] Professor Gole opined that in the absence of any other disorder or disease, the injury was consistent with a shaking event.[151] Professor Gole opined that from his examination he determined that he was 90% certain that non-accidental force had been used of moderate to severe force.[152] Professor Gole stated that recent data informed that clinical experience saw flame shaped haemorrhaging clear generally in 3 to 5 days "but the record's fifty days".[153]
[165] Professor Gole opined that the extent and appearance of the bleeding was not the result of CPR nor from a "head knock from another child" or a "crush injury from one child sitting on the chest of another child".[154] Those expressed opinions were drawn from experience and literature. The nature of the bleeding would not have affected Zoe's vision and would have caused "no apparent functional deficit".[155]
[166] Professor Gole did not accept that the haemorrhaging could have been caused from surgery.[156] Professor Gole accepted that if there was evidence that Zoe had severe haemophilia that may explain the observed injuries, but it was unlikely, and he was not aware of this condition in Zoe's case.[157] Professor Gole agreed that given the number of haemorrhages seen, he would have expected there to be some other damage to the head in the case of an impact injury, but you could have a shake injury without external evidence and without injury to the neck or spine.[158]
[167] Dr Wood qualified in neurosurgery in 2006. Dr Wood undertook further training in Paris in the specialist area of paediatric neurosurgery and commenced as a consultant neurosurgeon in 2007. A large part of his work is in paediatric neurosurgery, and he is a consultant in both Children's hospitals in Brisbane.[159]
[168] Dr Wood informed the court, that blood tests are done preoperatively, in order to make sure the surgery can be safely done: to ensure the patient has adequate levels of haemoglobin, that there were no undiscovered problems with metabolism, sodium levels and potassium levels, relevant to anaesthesia. There is a need to make sure the patient is cross matched, if blood transfusion is necessary, and importantly that their coagulation profile is normal, so that "there's not going to be any undue bleeding during surgery that is unable to be controlled".[160] The subsequent operation revealed no such condition, as there was no difficulty in controlling the haemorrhage.[161] Coagulation tests conducted on 24 August 2015, revealed no evidence of a bleeding disorder and Dr Wood detailed those findings in his evidence.[162]
[169] On 24 July 2015, Dr Wood was the treating neurosurgeon in Zoe's operation at the Lady Cilento Hospital. He was assisted by a non-accredited registrar, Dr Chan.[163]
[170] Dr Wood identified through the evidenced CT scans that the striking finding was an area of subdural bleeding on the left side, which was depressing the brain inward. The cerebral ventricles were displaced and pushed across to the right by a considerable margin.[164] In his opinion Zoe was in "a dire neurological state, most likely close to death", as there was a very high degree of pressure inside her head.[165] The threat to life emerges from the pressure created by the displacement of the brain from one side to the other, forced by the subdural haemorrhage.[166] Dr Wood indicated that if he had not operated upon Zoe she would have died within an hour or two.[167]
[171] Dr Wood explained that the lighter hyperdense area of bleeding seen in the CT scans indicated acute bleeding. The darker areas seen within the CT scans, Dr Wood explained, can have the appearance of chronic injury, however it may also be the result of layering of blood in the "acute setting".[168] Dr Wood stated that the best evidence of what was "actually happening comes down to what you see with your eyeballs at surgery". During the surgery, Dr Wood identified copious amounts of fresh or acute blood that was evacuated, and the bleeding points secured. There was no evidence of chronic bleeding, "it was all consistent with acute blood".[169]
[172] Dr Wood explained that a shaking or rapid acceleration and deceleration injury to the brain causes tears to veins, leading to bleeding into the subdural space.[170] In his opinion the pattern of observed injuries was consistent with a shaking mechanism; those features included Zoe's poor neurological presentation, a very large acute subdural hematoma, and the presence of retinal haemorrhages.[171] The absence of injury to Zoe's neck or spine did not affect that held opinion.[172] The impact injury sufficient to cause the skull fractures would not usually have resulted in a subdural haematoma but would have resulted in an extradural haematoma.[173] It is for that reason that Dr Wood stated, "that you can confidently infer that there has to be both a shaking injury and a secondary impact injury".[174]
[173] In Dr Wood's opinion, the skull fractures would need to have been caused by two areas of impact, as there was no continuity between the two, and impact in one area alone would not have been sufficient to cause impact on the opposite side.[175]
[174] Dr Wood opined that the injury causing the subdural hematoma was within a couple of hours before presentation, and that the acceleration/deceleration force to Zoe's head was considerable. That opinion was drawn from the acute nature and size of the bleeding and her presentation in such a severely compromised clinical state.
[175] Dr Wood agreed that there was evident swelling around the head fracture, and opined that fracture was acute.[176] Dr Wood did not necessarily consider that the fractures occurred at the same time as the subdural haemorrhage and may have possibly occurred a day or two earlier.[177] The severity of the subdural haemorrhage and acute nature of the bleeding would have resulted in a loss of consciousness within one to two hours of presentation and may have resulted in an immediate loss of consciousness.[178]
[176] Dr Wood did not accept that the injury could have occurred prior to the footage from the chemist, in light of her alert state.[179] Dr Wood did not accept that there was any mechanistic link between the blood loss to the femur fracture and the subdural haemorrhage.[180] Dr Wood stated that Anna falling from the couch onto Zoe would not have generated sufficient accelerative/decelerative force to shear vessels and cause subdural haemorrhage.[181] Whilst it may have explained one of the fractures, it would not explain retinal haemorrhage.[182] Dr Wood watched the walk through conducted with the defendant, and clarified that the suggestion of Anna's fall would not explain the fractures on the skull opposite from the direction she fell and again did not have sufficient accelerative/decelerative force to cause the subdural haemorrhage.[183] The demonstrated shaking did not reveal sufficient accelerative/decelerative force to have caused such a severe and acute subdural haemorrhage.[184]
[177] Dr Wood did not accept that the Operation Report properly identified that Dr Chan conducted the surgery.[185] Dr Wood did not accept that the report was accurate in describing "acute and chronic washout", as that detail was filled in by Dr Chan and he did not perform the surgery.[186] It was suggested that in a recorded file note of a conference with prosecutor Matthew Le Grande on 13 August 2018, Dr Wood could not say how much of the physical surgery he performed. Dr Wood stated that he agreed that "it would be unusual to recall three years later exactly what I did during any surgical procedure" but he did recall "looking in and around the intracranial cavity to make sure we'd adequately washed out the clot and there was no ongoing bleeding".[187] Dr Wood confirmed that in his statement of 19 October 2015, he had stated "CT scan demonstrated large acute subdural haematoma".[188] Dr True also detailed her conversation with Dr Wood on 24 July 2015, where Dr Wood confirmed acute haemorrhage "as opposed to acute on chronic haemorrhage".[189] Dr Wood explained that reviews of CT scans were capable of misinterpretation between chronic bleeding and active ongoing bleeding as they appear similar, which is the relevance of actually seeing inside during surgery.[190]
[178] Dr Wood did not accept that there was any chronic bleed consistent with a haematoma from birth.[191] Dr Wood did not accept that internal pressure within the skull could have caused the fractures, as the suture lines in an infant allow for growth.[192] Dr Wood agreed that superficial skin changes such as swelling or bruising were likely, if there had been some blunt force trauma to Zoe's head.[193]
[179] Dr Wood confirmed that the ischaemic changes seen in the post operative MRI scans were not consistent with any trauma or existing disease that had occurred six to eight months before Zoe's presentation.[194] Dr Wood did not accept that an "old bleed" could start a "new bleed" due to vessels already being stretched from a pre-existing clot between the skull and the brain.[195]
[180] The defendant called Dr Chan, a physician in general practice. Dr Chan graduated in 2010, worked as an unaccredited registrar in neurosurgery for six years from 2014. Dr Chan explained that meant he had an interest in and worked in that field but was not officially in training. He held no specialist training in paediatric neurosurgery.[196]
[181] Dr Chan agreed that he had documented "acute and chronic clot washed out" in the surgical report for Zoe's operation.[197] Dr Chan agreed that a reference in a report to hyperdense and hypodense blood could possibly be a reference to new and old blood, that is acute and chronic, though this was not the only possible explanation from the scan.[198] Dr Chan opined that theoretically if an old bleed had been stopped with a platelet plug, it could be disrupted and result in a new bleed.[199]
[182] Dr Chan agreed that he had only one year experience at the time of the surgery and was not capable of conducting any surgery without Dr Wood and he deferred to the observational expertise of Dr Wood.[200]
[183] Dr True qualified as a paediatrician in 2003 and has been employed in Children's hospitals since 2004. Dr True holds a Master of Forensic Medicine that she attained in 2012. Dr True has over 20 years' experience in working in child protection and forensic medicine as well as general paediatrics.[201] In 2015, Dr True was working in the Child Protection and Forensic Medical Service of the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital. Dr True was consulted in the assessment of risk to children and explained that assessment used a combination of her own examination skills and examinations conducted by sub-specialists such as ophthalmology, radiology and neurosurgery.[202]
[184] The defendant provided an account of the events of 24 July 2015 in terms consistent with the account provided to the police.[203]
[185] Dr True examine Zoe after her surgical operation. There was an obvious deformity to her femur. Her other limbs appeared normal in alignment and proportion, and Dr True did not observe any bruising, abrasions or lacerations.[204] Dr True opined that Zoe did not have any blood clotting disorder, as the coagulation tests all came back normal, and any abnormal readings returned to normal in subsequent testing.[205] The abnormal levels reflected that Zoe was acutely unwell at that time. Dr True confirmed that no genetic screening was done for blood disorder by the hospital, as the specific blood tests were normal.[206] Dr True opined that the low haemoglobin levels reported on 24 July 2015, were because of Zoe's bleeding in her subdural haemorrhage.[207]
[186] The reported multifocal haemorrhage and subdural haemorrhage informed Dr True that the mechanisms involved angular acceleration-deceleration, as tearing to the very small veins is caused by the motion of the brain.[208] Dr True was informed of the observations of Dr Shetty regarding fractures to Zoe's skull and preferred the conclusion that they were the result of two blunt force impacts.[209] Dr True opined that the swelling observed by Dr Shetty suggested some recency to the underlying fracture - days to two weeks.[210]
[187] Dr True considered the observed presence of and extent of retinal haemorrhages as important, as such is not common to "just impact trauma" but more consistent with angular acceleration-deceleration or a significant height fall of some metres.[211]
[188] Dr True viewed the footage from the chemist[212] and concluded that it was very unlikely that Zoe had a subdural haemorrhage at that time, given her calm, engaging behaviour.[213] Dr True was unable to draw the same conclusion in respect of the fractures to Zoe's skull.[214] Dr True opined that healing fractures may not have caused Zoe significant pain, and her disposition in the footage did not mean such fractures had already occurred.[215]
[189] Dr True considered that it was unlikely/probably impossible for the described fall by Anna on the couch to have sufficient force to cause the subdural haemorrhage or the fractures to Zoe's skull, and there was no evidence of external injury consistent with the described incident nor was there any suggested movement of the bouncer.[216]
[190] Dr True considered that a short fall on a tiled surface was an unlikely explanation for the observed skull fractures.[217]
[191] Dr True opined that the coincidental location of rib fractures generally only occurs from the compression of the rib cage.[218] Dr True described the force required as "substantial significant way outside the excessive force that you wouldn't require to handle a six-month-old infant" and it was not something that a two-year-old could do.[219]
[192] Dr True opined that the described fracture to the left tibia was a "spiral fracture" and involved a torsional force of "far greater than the forces that you usually need, to care for an infant of that size".[220] Dr True opined that a child of two years could not have generated sufficient force to cause this injury.[221] Similar force was required to cause the fracture to the humerus.[222]
[193] Dr True accepted that a fall to a tiled floor whilst nursing a child could explain fractures to a child's skull but the fracture to a child's humerus was unlikely, and understandably the child would cry and feel pain.[223]
[194] The defendant called Dr Wade, a qualified paediatrician. Dr Wade had trained within paediatrics since 2014 and held her specialist qualification since 2022. Dr Wade graduated from university in 2011.[224]
[195] Dr Wade had seen Zoe as a patient since June 2024 and had accessed Zoe's full birth history.[225] Dr Wade confirmed that Zoe had high INR levels in the consecutive tests of 24 to 26 July 2015, but the level returned to normal on 8 August 2015.[226] In Dr Wade's opinion the high INR levels were the result of all of Zoe's clotting factors being exhausted making a clot in response to trauma and not the result of an underlying blood disorder, as the levels did return to normal.[227] The blood tests conducted on 17 August 2015 did not identify that Zoe had any lung or liver disease.[228] Zoe's levels of Factor 13 (clotting factor) were low on 27 July 2015 and returned to normal on 11 November 2015, and Dr Wade's opinion was again that Zoe had no underlying disorder, rather the low levels were indicative of use in response to trauma.[229] Dr Wade concluded from her examination of the blood tests conducted in July 2015 comparative to August and November 2015, that Zoe did not suffer from any underlying clotting disorder, including haemophilia.[230]
[196] The birthing medical records did not identify any evidence of Zoe suffering a bleed on the brain while at the Redcliffe Hospital.[231] Whilst untreated levels of sodium classically lead to seizures and unconsciousness, Zoe's condition of hyponatraemia, low sodium level, upon birth, was a common finding in premature babies, was treated and did not appear to be an ongoing issue after her discharge.[232] There was no evidence that Zoe suffered hypoxaemia (a condition affecting oxygen to the brain).[233] Zoe was discharged from Redcliffe Hospital on 6 January 2015 with nil acute concerns.[234]
[197] Ms Muirhead was working as a Social Worker in the Emergency Department of the Caboolture Hospital on 24 July 2015.[235]
[198] The defendant provided a version as to what had happened to Zoe. The defendant was in another area of the home doing applications for housing and heard her older daughter cry. When the defendant came in, she saw Zoe, who had been in a bouncer flopped to one side.[236] The defendant splashed water on Zoe and tried to "shake her a little bit" to make her more alert.[237] The defendant later mentioned that the applications were an urgent matter because the family needed to be out of the house the following day.[238] Ms Muirhead recalled that this recount was provided to Dr Sekar and Dr Shittu.[239]
[199] Ms Blight was very distressed and crying at the hospital.[240]
Ms Muir accepted that she was recalling events from 10 years ago, but "three things stood out", that Zoe's parents were told that Zoe had an older skull fracture, a new skull fracture and a broken leg.[241] The preponderance of evidence from treating physicians refute any suggestion that Zoe had an older skull fracture and I determine that Ms Muir's representation that there had been any such injury as a mistake attributed to the passage of time.
Barbara Stringfellow - Section 93B
[200] The evidence of Barbara Stringfellow was admitted pursuant to section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Ms Stringfellow had provided consecutive sworn statements on 25 and 26 July 2015, temporal to the events of 24 July 2015. [242]
[201] I am cognisant that special considerations arise in relation to things stated within each of these statements.
[202] As the statements, to some extent, are presented through the interpretation of the Officer taking the statements, there is a risk that the evidence is not a reliable account of what actually happened. Though the statements are sworn and acknowledged and so adopted by the witness, that does not subject the witness to quite the same imperative to speak truthfully, as if they were in court testifying on oath. Importantly, the limitation attached to receipt of the evidence in this way, though not challenged before me in the sense of its reliability or accuracy, is that the evidence is untested or untestable.
[203] Whilst there is a need for circumspection or caution before deciding to accept the reliability of things contained within the statements, I have formed the view, given its temporal and impartial context, that the things stated within are accurate and reliable.
[204] Ms Stringfellow was the defendant's neighbour. The defendant attended her home on the afternoon of 24 July 2025 in a visibly distressed condition. Zoe was presented in compromised health, pale and breathing irregularly. Ms Stringfellow had been a registered midwife from her late 20s until she retired at 64 years of age. Ms Stringfellow performed compressions upon Zoe's chest using four fingers, and "did not use much pressure or force at all as the baby was still breathing but appeared to be gasping for air". The "two or three" compressions to the chest area of Zoe were repeated only "two or three times", as the ambulance officers had arrived "very quickly" and then attended to the care of Zoe.
[205] DSC Eather conceded that there was no walkthrough conducted with this witness to record a visual demonstration of the way in which Ms Stringfellow applied first aid[243]. The evidence is inconclusive as to the location on the chest at which Ms Stringfellow performed compressions. I was unable to exclude the rational possibility that the site of applied compression coincided with the site of the observed rib fractures.
[206] However, given the lack of force described and limited and perfunctory nature of the compressions, I have comfortably excluded any rational possibility that these actions of compression by Ms Stringfellow were the mechanism by which Zoe suffered rib fractures.
[207] The defendant's submissions focused extensively on the "absence of evidence," the discrepancies and conflicts of the police investigation, the medical records and the expert testimony concerning her infant daughter, Zoe.
A. Investigative Conduct (DSC Mitchell Lollback and DSC Roxanne Eather)
[208] The defendant criticised the lead investigators, DSC Mitchell Lollback and DSC Roxanne Eather, and other police officers. The defendant asserted that the police failed to conduct a thorough investigation, withheld full evidence, disregarded Zoe's birth history and covered up alleged child abuse and sexual abuse Zoe suffered while removed from the defendant's care (there was no evidential foundation for the latter contention). The defendant argued that there was a critical failure to obtain key evidence such as statements from Dr McNeill or CCTV footage from Morton Bay Radiology, that could have demonstrated whether Zoe exhibited injuries (rib fractures, left tibia/fibula, right humorous fractures) prior to her emergency presentation at the Caboolture Hospital.
B. Medical Evidence and Injuries (Dr Shittu, Dr Patten and Dr True)
[209] A central theme of the defendant's closing address was the discrepancies regarding the extent of Zoe's injuries upon presentation at Caboolture Hospital versus subsequent findings at Lady Cilento Children's Hospital.
(i) Extent of scanning: The defendant challenged Dr Shittu's statement that a full body CT scan, from top to toe, was performed at Caboolture Hospital. She pointed out that other doctors namely Dr Clark, Dr Patten, and Dr Van Der Merew, contradicted this, stating the scan was limited to the head, neck, and abdomen. This undermined the reliability of Dr Shittu.
(ii) Identified injuries: The defendant noted that several physicians from the Caboolture Hospital (Dr Shittu, Dr Sekar) initially reported only the two injuries, an "acute on chronic" subdural haemorrhage and a right femur fracture. The defendant contended that Zoe went from Caboolture with two injuries to Lady Cilento Children's Hospital with "every bone possibly broken in her body.", and so the court should have a general lack of confidence in the medical evidence and opinions presented in the trial.
(iii) Skull fractures: The defendant asserted that Dr Shittu and Dr Sekar did not mention skull fractures in their original statements or initial findings, raising concerns about the later introduction of these injuries, and linked to, as the defendant asserted, altered scans presented in evidence before the court.
(iv) Femur fractures: The defendant maintained that the right femur fracture was a result of an accident and emphasised that she had taken appropriate medical care for that injury. The defendant contended that the court would accept the behaviour demonstrated that she had never harmed Zoe.
(v) Nature of bleed: The defendant contended that the venous nature of the brain bleed (low pressure/slow ooze) described by Dr Shittu, Dr Clarke and Dr Patten was inconsistent with any violent shaking or blunt force trauma. The defendant contended that the evidence of the neurosurgeon, Dr Woods, should not be accepted as the nature of the bleeding and his evidence was contradicted his own surgical notes (reading "acute on chronic clot washout").
(vi) Sodium deficiency: The defendant contended that Zoe's symptoms in the hospitals (swelling, pressure on the brain, heavy breathing) were causally linked to her hyponatremia sodium deficiency (low sodium deficiency) from birth. The defendant developed her argument, noting Zoe's brain swelling reduced upon receiving hypotonic saline, and so the swelling which endangered Zoe's life was not caused solely by the bleeding.
[210] The defendant suggested that the medical scans presented in evidence in the trial were unreliable or manipulated. Dr Shetty admitted to removing patient names for privacy and altering scans to improve clarity over fracture sites. The defendant argued that this practice, combined with inconsistency in the date and times documented on the scans, cast doubt on the integrity of the scans tendered in evidence.
[211] The defendant challenged the expert's exclusion of pre-existing blood disorders. The defendant invited the court to accept that Zoe's blood results at the time of presentation at the Lady Cilento Hospital showed elevated INR, and the prothrombin times suggested mildly prolonged clotting. The defendant contended that the court should not accept the opinions expressed by that the doctors providing expert testimony, Dr Wood, Professor Gole and Dr Wade, as they were not haematologists. The defendant contended that the court could not exclude that the bleeding was related to Zoe's haemophilia and other pre-existing conditions. The defendant referred to the lack of external injury to Zoe's head, which Professor Gole would have expected if a knock had caused the injury.
[212] The defendant emphasised her history as a loving, caring mother. The defendant noted she was pre-approved for a new rental and had money saved, countering any suggestion she was financially unable to cope and was stressed due to impending eviction. The defendant also highlighted her immediate response in seeking help from a neighbour and calling ambulance when Zoe became unresponsive. The defendant contended that the court would accept the behaviour demonstrated that she had never harmed Zoe.
[213] The Crown Prosecutor, Ms Gallagher, delivered submissions arguing that whilst the case was circumstantial, the evidence presented excluded any rational hypotheses other than the defendant's guilt.
[214] The severity of the subdural haematoma was life-threatening due to the pressure on the brain. Ms Gallagher emphasised that Dr Wood's testimony should be preferred as a lead surgeon that the bleed was acute, placing the injury in a narrow window of time, approximately 1 to 2 hours before Zoe's presentation at the hospital around 4:00pm. Zoe appeared neurologically appropriate on Priceline CCTV footage around 11:00am. Ms Gallagher submitted that the undisputed mechanism for this type of subdural haematoma involves acceleration-deacceleration forces (shaking/shearing), supported by the finding of multi-focal subdural haemorrhages and the presence of retinal haemorrhages (Professor Gole's evidence). The evidence "ruled out" Anna, who was incapable of generating the required force necessary, which meant the defendant was the only person who could have caused the injury to Zoe. The defendant's denial should be rejected because her own evidence of Zoe's rapid decline was inconsistent with there being no intervening act causing the subdural haemorrhage.
[215] The prosecution asserted that the existence of other fractures (ribs, tibia/fibula, humerus) showed a pattern of propensity behaviour by the defendant, which made the grievous bodily harm charge "intelligible" and rebutted any suggestion of accidental injury. There was a body of evidence that explained the defendant harming her infant daughter, she had acted out of frustration caused by extreme stressors in her life at the time, including an imminent eviction, financial concerns, and Zoe being unsettled.
[216] Ms Gallagher contended that the court can easily dismiss the alternative hypothesis raised by defence.
(i) The right femur fracture was not causatively related to the subdural haematoma.
(ii) Zoe's hypernatremia/low sodium was an issue at birth, and like other issues at birth, had well-resolved before she was seven-month-old, when the subdural haemorrhage was sustained.
(iii) There was no mechanism of overlapping sutures causing injury to Zoe.
(iv) Blood disorders, including haemophilia, were ruled out by the medical experts called at the trial.
(v) Regarding the scans, the Caboolture Hospital did not perform a false skeletal survey, and while some names were removed for privacy, there was no evidence of "doctoring" of any of the images evidenced in the trial.
[217] The defendant challenged the authenticity of some of the CT and x-ray scans from which concluding medical opinion was drawn. I had no difficulty in accepting the authenticity of those scans and x-rays. I accepted the credibility and reliability of explanations provided, that such images, where they did not contain identifying information, had been cropped for convenience of presentation. It was an irresistible conclusion that those images were authentic, where those images were so remarkably like the unchallenged scans which bore identification features. The contention that some of the scans were time stamped after Zoe was examined, and so not authentic, was not accepted. The delayed time was easily explained. Specific images were taken at the time of examination, and a subsequent rendering process through the machine's software, produced other images (such as 3D images) time stamped according to the time of production of the rendered image.[244]
[218] I was satisfied that the element of grievous bodily harm was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I accepted the preponderance of expressed expert medical opinion that the subdural haemorrhage was a bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would have endangered Zoe's life. It was an understandably unchallenged position, as this darling little girl would have died but for the exceptional medical intervention of both the Caboolture and Lady Cilento Hospitals.
The Mechanism that was the Source of the Grievous Bodily Harm
[219] The identification of the mechanism or mechanisms involved in causing the subdural haemorrhage was a critical issue in this trial.
[220] I accepted the expressed opinion of Dr Wood that there had been a shaking or rapid acceleration and deceleration injury to the brain, that caused tears to Zoe's veins, leading to the bleeding into the subdural space.[245] I was confident in accepting Dr Wood's expressed opinion, given his experience and qualifications and there was a coincidence of expressed opinions supporting his conclusion. Dr Shetty, an expert paediatric radiologist, described the "shearing" nature injuries to the blood vessels involved in the subdural haemorrhage.[246] Dr True, an expert in paediatric medicinal practice, consider that the reported multifocal haemorrhage and subdural haemorrhage, and concluded that the mechanism involved angular acceleration-deceleration, tearing the very small veins by the motion of the brain.[247]
[221] I was required not to consider the circumstantial case in a piecemeal way. The presence of retinal haemorrhaging I accepted was a significant and relevant finding adding weight to the expressed opinion of Dr Wood.
[222] I accepted expressed opinions of Professor Gole, the expert paediatric ophthalmologist with 40 years' experience. In the absence of any pre-existing disorder or disease, of which no evidence was presented suggesting Zoe had such, he concluded that the observed injuries to Zoe's eyes were attributed to the backwards and forwards motion of the head, causing the jelly inside of the eye to continue moving a tear the blood vessels at the surface of the retina, and more specifically, the rapid deceleration of the head.[248] The expressed opinion of Professor Gole that the flame shaped haemorrhaging may have occurred up to 3 to 5 days prior to his examination[249], did not detract from my conclusion that the origin of force causing the injuries to Zoe's eyes, was the same as that causing her subdural haemorrhage.
[223] The combination then, of the presence of the subdural haemorrhage and retinal haemorrhages, strengthened the drawn conclusion that Zoe's subdural haemorrhage had been the result of a force causing rapid acceleration/deceleration of her brain. The probative value of the coincidence of the injuries was recognised in the expressed opinions of Dr Wood and Dr True,[250] of which I had no difficulty accepting. The conclusion was irresistible given the coincidence of mechanism involved in each injury.
Could Any Pre-Existing Organic Condition Possibly Explain the Subdural Haemorrhage?
[224] I accepted that there was no evidence presented in the trial which identified that Zoe had any pre-existing organic condition. By that, Zoe had no pre-existing abnormality, disease or disorder that may have caused or contributed to the cause of her subdural haemorrhage. There was certainly no evidence from blood testing that revealed Zoe was a haemophiliac, and the control of bleeding within her operation contra-indicated any suggestion otherwise.
Could Any Pre-Existing Injury Possibly Explain the Subdural Haemorrhage?
[225] The suggestion that the injury to Zoe's femur had caused the subdural haemorrhage was nonsensical.
[226] I accepted the expressed opinion of Dr Wood that there was only an acute component of the bleeding associated with Zoe's subdural haemorrhage.
[227] Dr Wood was the Consultant Paediatric Neurosurgeon who operated on Zoe. I reject the contention that his expressed opinion was undermined by his expressed account in the prosecution file note in August 2018, of uncertainty as to "how much of the physical surgery he performed". Dr Chan was not qualified to perform surgery on Zoe without supervision, and inevitably Dr Wood had oversight of the operation and performed critical aspects of the surgery. Dr Woods expressed opinion excluding any chronic aspect to the injury was consistently recorded on 24 July 2015 and in October 2015.[251]
[228] The expressed opinions of various medical practitioners attributing a chronic component of the bleeding associated with Zoe's subdural haemorrhage were qualified with reference to the relevant CT scans.[252] Dr Bursle, an expert paediatric radiologist, was reluctant to age blood products from such a scan.
[229] Dr Bursle agreed that the swelling in the brain suggested an acute component to the injury.[253]
[230] The hypothesis of an incidental or accidental aggravation of a pre-existing injury is remote and fanciful; there was no evidence of any older pre-existing bleeding injury to be exacerbated and there was an absence of any chronic aspect to the subdural haemorrhage.
[231] The identification of the timing of the force causing the subdural haemorrhage was a critical issue in this trial, as it limited the potential author of injury to Zoe.
[232] The visible condition of Zoe at the Priceline Chemist at 11:00am on 24 July 2015, capably demonstrated that Zoe had not yet received the catastrophic injury to her brain. That conclusion is well supported by coincidental opinions expressed by Dr Wood and Dr True.[254]
[233] I accepted that the force causing the subdural haemorrhage occurred after the visit to the chemist.
[234] I accepted Dr Wood's expressed opinion that the severity of the subdural haemorrhage and acute nature of the bleeding would have resulted in a loss of consciousness within one to two hours of presentation and may have resulted in an immediate loss of consciousness.[255] Dr Shittu, Senior Staff Specialist, similarly described the acute bleed as occurring within "a couple of hours".[256] Dr Wood's experience and qualifications fortified my acceptance of his expressed opinion and the preponderance of medical opinion attributed an acute nature to the injury.
[235] That evidence left Zoe only in the company of her mother, the defendant and her older two-year-old sibling, Anna at the time of the infliction of the injury.
[236] The evidence provided of the defendant's partner's absence from the home was uncontroversial and unchallenged, and so he was without any such opportunity to inflict the injury.
[237] Zoe was immobile and it is fanciful to contemplate a circumstance in which she caused a subdural haemorrhage.
[238] It is equally fanciful to contemplate a circumstance in which a 2-year-old child could have participated in the mechanisms necessary to cause the subdural haemorrhage to her infant sister.
[239] I have comfortably excluded any rational hypothesis that Anna was the author of an injury which led to a subdural haemorrhage. I accepted the supporting expressed and uncontradicted opinions of Professor Gole, Dr Wood and Dr True. I accepted those expressed opinions as a matter of logic, informed by their qualified experience and knowledge.
[240] Professor Gole expressed the moderate to severe force required from non-accidental source to cause the retinal haemorrhages. Professor Gole rejected the proposition that the source cause was a "head knock from another child" or a "crush injury from one child sitting on the chest of another child".[257]
[241] Dr Wood viewed the walk-through reenactment on 27 July 2015, and comfortably rejected the contention that Anna had executed sufficient force to cause the subdural haemorrhage. Coincidentally, Dr True considered that it was unlikely/probably impossible for the described fall by Anna on the couch to have sufficient force to cause the subdural haemorrhage. The absence of external injury consistent with a forceful collision between Anna and Zoe's head was also significant, and supported the exclusion of this potential mechanism causing the subdural haemorrhage.
[242] I viewed the only occasion that the defendant accepted she applied some form of accelerative/decelerative force to her infant daughter. That described "shaking" was demonstrated to the interviewing officer on 24 July 2015 and repeated with a visual demonstration during the walk-through reenactment on 27 July 2015.
[243] On viewing that demonstration, Dr Woods concluded that it did not reveal sufficient accelerative/decelerative force to have caused such a severe and acute subdural haemorrhage.[258] I have accepted that expressed opinion, where I accepted the level of force required to cause the subdural haemorrhage. In the sequence of events described by the defendant, the shaking of her infant daughter, followed her child being in a compromised condition, and is logically rejected.
[244] I rejected the possibility that defendant's representations in her interviews and to others that she did not harm her infant daughter was true. The evidence conclusively supported that a deliberate accelerative/decelerative force was applied by her mother, the defendant, following her return from the chemist and most likely within hours of her attending the Caboolture Hospital.
[245] The fractures to Zoe's skull were serious and concerning injuries. Unlike the subdural haemorrhage, these fractures were not conclusively temporal to her presentation at the Caboolture Hospital nor with any accelerative/decelerative force applied causing the subdural haemorrhage. Dr Wood opined that the impact injury sufficient to cause the skull fractures would not usually have resulted in subdural haematoma, and whilst the presence of associated swelling at the surface suggested that the fractures were acute, he considered the possibility that the fractures occurred a day or two prior to presentation. Dr Wood preferred a second impact injury as the source of the fractures. [259] Dr True also opined that the associated swelling at the surface suggested some recency to these underlying fractures and considered that such injuries had occurred within days to two weeks of Zoe's presentation to the Caboolture Hospital. In Dr True's opinion, the observed appearance of Zoe at the Priceline Chemist did not exclude the possibility that these fractures had already occurred.[260] Dr Shetty similarly opined that the scalp swelling was associated with these fractures and considered that these fractures occurred within hours or a day or so prior to the presentation of Zoe to the Caboolture Hospital.[261] I accepted these propositions, considering the experience and qualifications of Dr Wood, Dr True and Dr Shetty, and the coincidence of their expressed opinion.
[246] The coincidence of expressed expert medical opinion excluded any internal mechanism causing the fractures to Zoe's skull.[262]
[247] I determined upon the evidence before me, that the only way in which these fractures would have been involved in the mechanism that caused the subdural haemorrhage was coincidental to the necessary accelerative/decelerative force. I had determined that the defendant was responsible for that accelerative/decelerative force.
[248] I determined that I was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that these fractures occasioned to Zoe were deliberately inflicted by the defendant, unless they were coincidental to the necessary accelerative/decelerative force. Consequently, I declined to consider these fractures as enhancing the likelihood of the defendant causing the subdural haemorrhage to her infant daughter, were such injuries not coincidentally inflicted, where given the potential relative timing of these fractures, I was unable to exclude the rational possibility that another adult caused this injury, despite her partner's denial of harming his daughter.
[249] The otherwise observed behaviour of the defendant is accepted. That her behaviour on this occasion differed is explained by the emotional context within which this event occurred, and that she behaved otherwise on occasions did not detract from my conclusion.
[250] The conclusion that there was a deliberate and forced administration of force with a rapid acceleration/deceleration mechanism was, on the evidence before me, unlawful. There was no basis for any conclusion that the applied force was justified, authorised or excused at law.
[251] There was no suggestion that the degree of force necessary to have caused this injury was such that the subdural haemorrhage would not have been foreseeable as a possible consequence in such an infant child, and I have no difficulty in such an adopted position, in light of the evidence conclusively demonstrating otherwise.
[252] Any suggested hypothesis that an unknown member of the public may have assaulted Zoe in her pram, whilst her mother, the defendant inspected the potential rental accommodation with Ms Maver, is remote and fanciful.
[253] Any suggested hypotheses that either of the ambulance officers or the medical staff at the hospitals contributed or caused the injury to Zoe, is again remote and fanciful.
[254] I determined that I was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the other injuries occasioned to Zoe were deliberately inflicted by the defendant and so such injuries were then disregarded in arriving at my concluding verdict. I will explain my reasons for having so concluded.
[255] Understandably the prosecution did not persist in reliance of the fracturing injuries to Zoe's legs as supporting the conclusion of guilt for the charged offence. Dr Shetty had opined that these injuries evidenced periosteal reaction or early callus formation, indicating an age of about two weeks or so, and agreed that that rough handling in pulling a child's leg through a pouch or pram was a possible explanation for the injuries. Dr Shetty also accepted the possibility that the upper femur fracture occurred at the same time as these injuries. Whilst Dr True expressed a contrary opinion, I could not exclude the rational possibility that these injuries were inflicted while handling an infant child, and so accidental.
[256] Dr Shetty had opined that the fracture to the humerus had periosteal reaction, indicating an age of within fourteen days, and opined that reasonable force beyond everyday handling was necessary to cause this injury. Dr Shetty accepted that explanations for the injury may include direct impact or a fall. Dr True did not consider a fall to a tiled floor whilst nursing a child was a likely explanation for this injury. The time of that event on the description of the defendant occurred around 22 May 2015 and remote in time from the event causing such an injury. I was unable to exclude the rational possibility that another adult caused this injury, despite her partner's denial of harming his daughter.
[257] Critically, Dr Shetty considered that the fracture to the left rib was possibly, but unlikely (because of its age) caused by a layperson administering CPR on 24 July 2015, but the other fractures were too old. Inferentially those same injuries could not be related to the mechanism in which Zoe suffered the subdural haemorrhage. On the evidence presented the fractures varied in age and given the relative timing of such an event, I was unable to exclude the rational possibility that another adult caused this injury, despite her partner's denial of harming his daughter. I was unable to exclude the rational possibility that the fall on the floor whilst nursing Zoe had caused some of these injuries, despite the defendant's efforts to avoid impact between Zoe, the floor and herself.
[258] I have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the subdural haemorrhage to her infant daughter Zoe on 24 July 2015, by deliberately and forcefully administering force with a rapid accelerative/decelerative mechanism. I have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the subdural haemorrhage constituted grievous bodily harm. I have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the causing of the subdural haemorrhage was unlawful.
[259] I found the defendant guilty of the offence charged upon the indictment.
[2] Section 320 of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[3] Section 4 of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[5] Section 615B(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[6] Section 615B(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[7] Section 615C(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[8] Section 615C(3) of the Criminal Code (Qld).
[9] [2014] WASC 341 at [8]- [14].
[10] MacPherson v The Queen [1981] HCA 46; (1981) 147 CLR 512 at 523, 524.
[12] This was permitted either pursuant to Sections 39PB or 39R of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) in the relevant
[13] The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308 at [46].
[16] The prosecution retracted reliance upon these injuries in support of a finding of guilt following the closing address, and so this evidence was ignored in determining the verdict.
[17] The prosecution retracted reliance upon these injuries in support of a finding of guilt following the closing address, and so this evidence was ignored in determining the verdict.
[18] This was contended to be inextricably linked to the logical application of the first basis.
[19] Sections 103CA and 103CB of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Such was provided in the opening address of the prosecution, TOP 1-5.20-38.
[26] Statement of Barbara Stringfellow, 25 July 2015 at [9]-[10]; Exhibit 29.
[30] TOP 2-73.7-11; 2-78.3-5; 2-85.1-16.
[79] TOP 4-28.33 to 4-29.13; 4-33.23-50.
[124] TOP 5-52.44 to 5-53.12; 5-53.44-50.
[127] TOP 5-57.35 to 5-58.3; 5-59.19-20.
[157] TOP 6-36.43 to 6-37.10; 6-43.1-10.
[161] TOP 8-20.27-30; 8-67.18 to 8-68.9.
[232] TOP 17-26.35 to 17-27.7; 17-38.5-15.
[244] Dr Woods TOP 10-11.38 to 10-13.18; Dr Bursle TOP 20-8.38-44; 17.3-11.
[252] See [133], [141] and [184].
[262] See [136],[140], [154], [180].
R
Blight
(1981) 147 CLR 512
(2016) 258 CLR 308
(2012) 245 CLR 499