A Violent Home Invasion and a Controversial Sentence Reduction

In a disturbing incident that left a woman fearing for her life, a violent home invasion unfolded in the early hours of the morning. The attack, described as 'prolonged and terrifying,' involved a group of women who were reportedly upset over a social media post in which the victim claimed one of them had cheated on her partner. The assault included the use of an extension cord wrapped around the victim’s neck, and the victim believed she was on the verge of death. Despite the severity of the attack, the victim managed to escape and seek help.
Two years after the incident, one of the perpetrators, Rosabel Daniella Catherine Kronfeld, successfully appealed her prison sentence, reducing it by six months. Originally sentenced to five and a half years for aggravated burglary, Kronfeld, then 25 years old, was on bail when she and four other women broke into the victim’s home shortly before 2:15 a.m. on August 19, 2. The identities of three of the others were never established, but they were known as 'Jayda,' 'Twista Queen,' and 'Des Joyce.'
The attack began with the group arriving uninvited at the victim’s home, where they began screaming and yelling abuse. The victim, who was alone, was woken by the noise, including the sound of a bottle breaking outside near the back door. As she approached the back door, Kronfeld kicked down the front door and entered, immediately starting to punch the victim in the face before allowing the others in. The group then launched what was described as a 'prolonged and terrifying attack,' during which the victim believed she was going to die.
According to the court’s account, 'Twista Queen' wrapped an extension cord around the victim’s neck and dragged her around the house, impairing her breathing. Meanwhile, Kronfeld and the others continued to hit and taunt her. At one point, one of the women signalled for the others to stop, saying, 'This is my kill, this is my s**t,' before grabbing the victim by the hair and 'ragdolled' her around the house. Despite the victim’s pleas to stop, the others, including Kronfeld, resumed the attack. One of them attempted to cut the victim’s hair with scissors, while another recorded the assault on her phone.
Kronfeld went to the victim’s bedroom and tried to remove footage from a security camera, damaging $3,000 worth of electronic equipment in the process. She then went to the kitchen, picked up a serrated bread knife, and handed it to one of the other women, who used it to strike the victim as Kronfeld held her by the hair. The victim sustained a 4cm wound to her shoulder, just below her neck. Once they released her hair, the victim managed to escape to a neighbor’s house and seek help.
Kronfeld was initially charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and burglary while armed with a weapon, but the charges were later amended to aggravated burglary. Her lawyer, Genevive Vear, argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that Kronfeld was entitled to the maximum available discount (25%) for her guilty plea, which was entered at the first reasonable opportunity following discussions with the Crown. However, the Court of Appeal did not agree, stating that the Crown’s case was 'very strong' based on the evidence, including the victim’s identification of Kronfeld as one of the attackers and her admissions to the police.
In their decision, Justices Pheroze Jagose, Ian Gault, and Christine French noted that while credit should have been given for background factors, the District Court sentencing judge, Nick Webby, was right to be sceptical about Kronfeld’s claim of remorse. They did not consider her entitled to a greater discount for her prospects of rehabilitation or remorse. During an interval in the police interview, she was heard muttering, 'I’m going to go and punch [the victim] after this, f*****g bitch,' which further undermined her claim of remorse.
Justice French highlighted that Vear was on stronger ground regarding background factors, including the spiral of events that led to Kronfeld losing custody of both of her children. 'What is significant is that most of Ms Kronfeld’s conviction history, including the index offending, occurred during what Ms Vear described as a dark period following the loss of both children,' she said. The higher court concluded that a 20% discount was open to the judge but did not think Kronfeld was entitled to a greater discount for her prospects of rehabilitation or remorse, noting that she had continued to minimize her role in the attack.
In quashing the initial sentence and replacing it with a five-year prison term, the Court of Appeal said a six-month reduction was appropriate, as it recognized the seriousness of the offending while aligning with case law.