Perl told the jury that quetiapine is not a drug prescribed to children under 10 years of age because its safety in young children is not known. The amount of the drug that Charlise had in her system, perhaps ingested within six hours of her death, was a toxic dose, and would have caused "significant sedation and vomiting".[1] She would have been in a state of "pronounced drowsiness"[2] or profound sedation[3] which it is reasonable to conclude the offender must have observed and been aware of. Because of this, Charlise had even less capacity than would otherwise have been the case to defend herself or flee from danger. Her age and the profound sedation caused by the quetiapine made her entirely vulnerable to the violence meted out to her by the offender.
82 In the circumstances that prevailed on the night of 11 to 12 January 2022, Charlise was also without the possibility of help from any other quarter. Charlise was taken by the offender to Mount Wilson, where she was isolated from the view, and assistance, of others. Not only was the Shadforth Road property secluded, but Charlise had no means independent of her adult carer of summoning help. She did not have a mobile telephone, and she could not drive away. As a young girl, she could not have hoped to oppose the offender, and nor could she have defended herself against him. The differences in the size and strength of a nine-year-old girl and a man in his thirties made it impossible that Charlise could have taken any meaningful step in her own defence. That prospect was even more impossible given that the offender used a lethal weapon against her – she had no hope at all of opposing a man wielding a firearm.
83 The weapon was stolen, and, beyond that, the offender had no legal right to possess any kind of firearm or ammunition, having no licence to do so.
84 He discharged not one, but two shots into Charlise's body, in a way that is plainly demonstrative of deliberation, and of his intention to kill her. I am satisfied to the criminal standard that the first shot was to Charlise's back and hip, as she was still alive to bleed into and from the wound. It is reasonable to infer that, having seen the offender with the gun, she turned to flee, and,
