SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Upon sentencing, Judge Collins made the following remarks:

"On 16 July 2026 the accused was convicted by the jury, unanimously, of the culpable homicide of her daughter Dahlia Rose, then only three months old, on 30 September 2023.

 "The charge was that having consumed alcohol, and while in sole charge of Dahlia Rose, the accused culpably and recklessly caused her to be subjected to significant and sustained heat from a hairdryer, on her head and body, as a result of which she sustained injuries so severe that she died.

"Evidence at trial

"What the evidence showed was that on the evening prior to Dahlia Rose’s death the accused had gone out socialising with friends and neighbours, had consumed a significant amount of alcohol, and did not get home until around four in the morning.

"Throughout this whole time the accused had Dahlia Rose with her, and was in sole charge of her.

"The accused’s home, although it had been seen to be clean and tidy by a health visitor in the weeks before, was now messy and untidy, with bags of rubbish lying around and dirty crockery piled up in the bedroom. 

"Dahlia Rose’s cot was being used for storage, not as a place for her to sleep. Instead, Dahlia Rose was routinely co-sleeping with the accused in her bed, despite having been warned of the dangers of doing so.

"In any event, at some point between around 4 am and 9 am on the morning of 30 September the accused caused Dahlia Rose to be subjected to significant and sustained heat from a hairdryer, which was later found plugged into the wall beside the accused’s bed. 

"Exactly why, when or how this happened is unknown.  The accused has not disclosed what happened, either at the trial, or to the criminal justice social worker.

"But in any event, her actions in causing Dahlia Rose to be subjected to heat from the hairdryer resulted in burns to around 18% of her whole body surface, and in particular to her head, face, neck, upper body and right arm. 

"These burns were severe and disfiguring.  But the weight of expert evidence was that in themselves they were survivable.

"The Crown’s expert’s position was that the likely cause of Dahlia Rose’s death was hyperthermia and heatstroke rather than burns.

"The defence expert’s position was that Dahlia Rose was likely already dead from another sudden and unexplained cause, before she was subjected to heat from the hairdryer.

"The jury clearly and emphatically rejected the defence position.  They had no reasonable doubt that it was the heat from the hairdryer which caused Dahlia Rose’s death. 

"Sentence

"Given Dahlia Rose’s very young age, and the horrifying way that she died, this is a uniquely disturbing and distressing case.   

"But it is tragic as well as terrible.  And that is because the evidence suggested that the accused loved Dahlia Rose, yet will have to live the rest of her life with the knowledge that she was responsible for her death.

"In determining sentence, the first thing to emphasise is that it was no part of the Crown case that the accused intended to harm still less kill Dahlia Rose.  This was not a case of culpable homicide resulting from an assault, still less a murder case.  It was a case of culpable homicide resulting from a high degree of carelessness or gross recklessness.  In principle this is a less serious offence, calling for a less severe sentence.

"Against this background the first question is as to the level of the accused’s culpability.   Two points can be made.

"In the first place, although the accused’s care of Dahlia Rose throughout the night of her death was poor at best, and in the end criminally reckless or negligent, this is not a case where the death was the culmination of repeated instances of parental neglect or abuse over weeks or months.  Rather it appears to have been a gross aberration from an otherwise – mostly - satisfactory standard of care.  There was social work involvement with the accused’s elder child, but not Dahlia Rose.

"In the second place, however, the evidence suggests that the accused must have turned the hairdryer on, positioned it close to Dahlia Rose, and left it on for at least 20 minutes, maybe an hour.  During this period it should have been obvious that Dahlia Rose was suffering severe and disfiguring burns over much of her face and body, and was being caused significant distress and pain.  Put another way, the accused’s actions - or failures to act - must have continued in the face of what should have been obvious suffering being caused to Dahlia Rose. 

"In all the circumstances I would assess the accused’s culpability for the offence as being at a medium level. 

"The next question is the level of harm caused.  This is straightforward.  The accused’s actions caused the death of an infant child.  That is harm at the highest level.

"Standing the nature of the offence, the accused’s culpability, and the level of harm caused, there is no question that this is a case in which only a significant custodial sentence can be appropriate.  I would place the starting point for sentencing as being 4 years imprisonment, and the range being between 3 and 7 years.

"The next question is to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, and therefore to consider whether the starting point should be increased or decreased within the range.  In considering this I have had regard to the CJSWR and to what has been said by Mr Macara this morning.  

"Certain aggravating factors can be identified:

"First, the very young age, vulnerability, and complete dependence of Dahlia Rose on the accused as her mother. The offence involved a gross breach of the most basic duty of a parent – to protect their child and keep them safe from harm.

"Second, the accused committed the offence while under the influence of alcohol.  This may well have contributed to her actions, either in subjecting Dahlia Rose to the heat from the hairdryer in the first place, or in failing to turn it off before she was injured and killed.  It is clear from Criminal Justice Social Work Report (CJSWR) that abuse of alcohol has been an ongoing issue for the accused.

"Third, before the police and paramedics arrived the accused removed Dahlia Rose’s body from the bedroom and took her out on to the balcony of her flat, even though she must have known that she was dead.  She then denied to others that she had any knowledge of how Dahlia Rose had died, how she came to be burnt, or of using the hairdryer that morning.  This is simply not credible.   This all indicates an attempt by the accused to cover up or conceal her involvement in the death.

"Fourth, notwithstanding the unanimous verdict of the jury it is apparent that the accused still does not fully accept her guilt.  I therefore do not accept that she has yet expressed genuine remorse for what she has done.

"On the other hand certain factors can be identified in mitigation:

"First, the accused has no other convictions, previously or since.

"Second, the accused was a young, single mother, with a history of poor mental health, who came off medication during pregnancy, who had limited support, and caring responsibilities for her older child. Since the death of Dahlia Rose she had attempted suicide.  None of this provides an excuse her conduct, but it would be wrong not to recognise it as a mitigating factor for the purpose of sentence.

"Weighing these matters as best I can, the sentence of the court will be one of 6 years imprisonment.  This will be backdated to 16 July 2026 when the accused was first taken into custody.

"There was reference in the CJSWR to the benefit of post release supervision.  There might indeed have been benefit in that, but I am not satisfied that the statutory tests for an extended sentence are met, and therefore will not impose one."

 14 August 2026