DPP v Farquharson - [2007] VSC 469

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1419 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 October 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 November 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Farquharson (sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 469	First revision 19/11/07

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – sentence – jury trial – murder by father of his three young children – rights of children - protection of children – duties of parents – life sentences imposed with no minimum term.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr J Rapke QC Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey Mr C Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid

---

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Farquharson, you may remain seated.

One of the functions of the law is to protect the weak from the strong. That is so in elements of commercial law, in constitutional law, in substantive law generally, and in procedural law. Nowhere is it more so than in criminal law. And in criminal law nowhere is it more so than in the protection of children.[1]
[1]R v Quarry (2005) 11 VR 337; DPP v Williamson [2000] VSC 115; R v Sharpe [2005] VSC 276.

Children are precious and are vulnerable. They are entitled to love, to care, to health, to education, to security and to safety[2]. Most of all they are entitled to life.
[2]United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959); The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

Parents of children have correlative duties to the rights of their children. Parents have a duty to nurture with love and care, to provide, as best they are able and with the help of the State, health and education for their children, and hopefully to give their children happiness. Most fundamentally of all, parents have a duty to protect their children.

The criminal law is not coextensive with parental duty. The criminal law should not overreach itself. Much parental duty is at a higher level than the reach of the criminal law. Much State function – the provision of education, of health care, of social welfare – is at a higher level than the reach of the criminal law. The criminal law is concerned with the bedrock of society – safety. Where the criminal law and the duty of parents coalesce is at the base – the duty to protect children. If the law fails there, the law fails. If the law is inadequate there, the law is inadequate. The protective mantle of the criminal law applies especially to children.[3]
[3]Professor P Boss On the Side of the Child: an Australian Perspective on Child Abuse (1980); Australian Institute of Criminology Report no. 53 by H R Strang: Children as Victims of Homicide; Dr A Wilczynski “Child killing by parents: a motivational model” (1995) 4 Child Abuse Review 365;…

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 DPP v Farquharson

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Farquharson [2007] VSC 469
Case: [2007] VSC 469
Decision Date: 16 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Farquharson, the High Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the sentence imposed on a father convicted of murdering his three young children. The court was called upon to review the sentences imposed by the lower courts, which were life sentences with no minimum term, in light of the unique circumstances of the case. The legal issues before the court revolved around the appropriate weight to be given to the rights of the deceased children, the protection owed to them by their father, and the extent to which the father's duties as a parent were breached in the commission of the murders.

The court examined the principles guiding the sentencing of offenders in cases involving the murder of vulnerable children by their parents. It was noted that the lower courts had considered the tragic circumstances of the case, including the ages of the children and the father's role as their primary caregiver. The court emphasised the importance of recognising the rights of the children to be protected by their parents and the corresponding duties of parents to safeguard their children's welfare. In light of these considerations, the court found that the lower courts had appropriately balanced the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence for the offender. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were just and proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

Given the court's determination that the sentences were appropriate, no orders were made to alter the sentences imposed by the lower courts. The life sentences with no minimum term for the father's convictions of murdering his three children remain in place, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the unique circumstances of the case. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of the protection of children and the duties owed by parents to their offspring, particularly in cases involving the most heinous of crimes.

Orders