Carter v The King - [2025] SASCA 82

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
CARTER v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 82
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice Stanley)
24 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
Application for permission to appeal against sentence.
The applicant appeals against the sentence imposed on his conviction of doing an act capable of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, intending to prejudice the safe operation of that aircraft, contrary to s 10 of the Aircraft Offences Act 1971 (SA).
The judge imposed a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 months to be served on home detention.
The applicant’s grounds relate to the judge’s treatment of ss 3 and 10 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), approach to the applicant’s financial hardship and loss, and reliance upon the decision in R v Baldetti. The applicant also complains that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Held, per the Court, granting permission to appeal, but dismissing the appeal:
1.The judge dealt with both general deterrence and the applicant’s financial hardship and loss appropriately.

2. The judge’s reliance upon R v Baldetti was not misplaced.
3. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.
Aircraft Offences Act 1971 (SA) s 10; Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) ss 3, 10(2) , referred to.
Athans v The Queen [2022] SASCA 71; Hackett v The Queen [2021] SASCA 32; R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232, discussed.

CARTER v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 82
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Kourakis CJ, S Doyle and Stanley JJA

THE COURT: At about 11.15 pm on 30 December 2018, from the backyard of his house in West Beach, the appellant shone a laser at a police helicopter as it was preparing to land at Adelaide Airport.
After a trial by jury, the appellant was convicted of doing an act capable of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, intending to prejudice the safe operation of that aircraft, contrary to s 10 of the Aircraft Offences Act 1971 (SA). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years.
The appellant was sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 months. The judge made an order that the sentence be served on home detention.
The appellant seeks permission to appeal against his sentence. As argued before this Court, his proposed grounds of appeal may be distilled as follows:
·the judge erred by prioritising or elevating the consideration of general deterrence over the primary sentencing objective, under s 3 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), of protecting the safety of the community;
·the judge failed to have regard to the principle in s 10(2) of the Sentencing Act that a court must not impose a sentence of imprisonment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Carter v The King

Details

AGLC: Carter v The King [2025] SASCA 82
Case: [2025] SASCA 82
Decision Date: 24 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Carter, appealed against a sentence imposed by a judge of the District Court. The appeal concerned the sentence for the offence of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft, contrary to section 10 of the *Aircraft Offences Act*. The appellant sought to adduce further evidence on appeal and contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the sentencing judge erred in their approach to the appellant's financial hardship and loss, and whether the sentence was otherwise manifestly excessive. A further issue was whether the appellant should be permitted to adduce further evidence on the appeal.

The Court considered the decision in *R v Baldetti*, which involved a similar offence of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft by shining a laser at a helicopter. In *Baldetti*, the Court of Appeal emphasised the paramount importance of general deterrence in such cases, noting that despite the spontaneous nature of the offending, it was deliberate and extremely dangerous, with the potential for fatal consequences. The Court in *Carter* found that the sentencing judge had not erred in their approach to the appellant's financial hardship or loss, nor had they misplaced reliance on *Baldetti*. The Court concluded that general deterrence was a significant factor that outweighed personal circumstances in this type of offending.

The Court granted permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The appellant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive.Conclusion For the reasons set out, we would grant permission to appeal, but dismiss the appellant’s appeal against sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

For these reasons, we would refuse the appellant’s application to adduce further evidence on the appeal. We do not accept that he has established error in the judge’s approach to his financial hardship or loss.Consideration of R v Baldetti Before coming to the appellant’s more general submissions in support of his contention of manifest excess, it is convenient to address what he contends was the judge’s misplaced reliance upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Baldetti.[3][3] R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232. The appellant in R v Baldetti was convicted of the same offence of prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft in contravention of s 10 of the Aircraft Offences Act, as well as several other offences, being mostly firearms-related offences. The s 10 offending involved the appellant shining a laser at a helicopter for about 20 seconds. The helicopter had been flying over the Port Adelaide area, with two police officers on board observing the roadways below for untoward driving. The pilot became aware of a green light flashing around the cockpit of the helicopter. The pilot was blinded for about five to 10 seconds before being able to regain his normal vision and read the helicopter’s instruments. When later apprehended, the appellant said that he had been shining the laser at the helicopter because it had been shining a searchlight upon him. In terms of his personal circumstances, the defendant was only 23 years of age at the time of his offending with only a limited history of offending, a steady history of employment, and a number of positive personal references. He had been a user of methamphetamine, but had no reported psychiatric or psychological concerns. For the s 10 offence, the appellant in R v Baldetti was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, reduced to two years and three months for his plea of guilty. After imposing a combined sentence for the s 10 and other offences of three years imprisonment, which was then reduced by two months for time served, the judge declined to suspend the sentence. On appeal, the appellant in R v Baldetti argued that the judge erred in declining to suspend his sentence. In particular, the appellant argued that the judge erred in not attaching sufficient weight to the appellant’s good record, and the essentially spontaneous nature of his offending. In rejecting this argument, the Court emphasised the importance of general deterrence. David J explained:[4]In my view, general deterrence is of the utmost importance in a case of this type. Despite the fact that the offending was unplanned and spontaneous, it was nevertheless, deliberate and extremely dangerous. The pilot was blind for a number of seconds and the helicopter was flying at a relatively low altitude. Such behaviour could have had fatal consequences, and it was clearly the duty of the sentencing judge to consider the need to protect aircraft from such threats. In my view, the sentencing judge correctly concluded that a suspended sentence of imprisonment would not satisfy the requirement for general deterrence, which outweighed those matters personal to the appellant.[4] R v Baldetti [2008] SASC 232 at [22] (David J, Duggan and Vanstone JJ agreeing).