Page:R v Stein (2024, NSWSC).pdf/7

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

14 The gunshot wound to the pelvis tracked from left to right, back to front, and downwards. It caused soft tissue injury and a fracture to the pelvis, with a fragment from the bullet recovered from the front surface of the hip bone and muscle, the bullet having travelled from the back and into the front of the pelvis.[1] Charlise had been wearing her black track pants and black skirt at the time she received the wound to her hip, as the projectile perforated those garments before entering Charlise's rear hip area. The entry point of the projectile and the track of the wound is consistent with Charlise having been turned away from the offender when the shot was discharged. Dr du Plessis could not give any estimate of the distance from the muzzle of the gun to the child's body, but there is no evidence that the shot was discharged at close range.

15 Bleeding into the wound established that Charlise was alive when struck by this bullet. Had it been the only shot discharged into her, she would have survived the injury if she had received medical attention. The same could not be said of the wound to Charlise's face, necessarily the second of the injuries.

16 The face wound tracked right to left, front to back, and upwards.[2] The projectile entered just below Charlise's right cheekbone[3] and tracked back and up, traversing the upper jawbone and travelling through to the base of the skull.[4] The shot caused extensive facial fractures, the displacement of the right upper second molar tooth, and a fracture to the clivus, or base of the skull. The bullet that the offender discharged into Charlise's face penetrated through to the intracranial cavity, that is, inside the skull where the brain sits, with fragments of the projectile recovered from the brain tissue.[5] The fragments recovered from the brain and from the pelvic bone were consistent with having been discharged from a weapon in the same class as the Birmingham Small Arms manufacture .22 calibre bolt action repeating long rifle that the offender had previously stolen, and which he had in his possession.[6] I am satisfied to


  1. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, pp 458–459.
  2. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, pp 451(35)–452(4).
  3. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, p 457.
  4. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, p 458.
  5. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, p 452(34); see also the evidence of Leading Senior Constable Kieran Scott (Tcpt, 22 May 2024, pp 400(34)–401(11)).
  6. Tcpt, 23 May 2024, p 467.