R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 3) - [2015] NSWSC 323

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Colin Maxwell FARROW (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 323
Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 February 2015; 13 March 2015
Date of orders: 30 March 2015
Decision date: 30 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 15 years, commencing 17 April 2013 and concluding 16 April 2028, with a remainder of term of a further 7 years, expiring on 16 April 2035.
First eligible for release on parole on 17 April 2028.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – mental illness – objective circumstances - subjective circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61
R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 109
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
E. Wilkins SC (Crown)
I. Todd (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/119978
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Remarks on Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Colin Maxwell Farrow pleaded not guilty to the murder of Linda Jane Stevens (the deceased) on the grounds of mental illness and was tried by the Court, sitting as a judge alone and found guilty on 27 February 2015: R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 109 (the earlier judgment).
These Remarks on Sentence need to be understood in conjunction with the finding of guilt and the reasons given therefor. The Court must now sentence Mr Farrow (the offender).
There are some aspects of the process of sentencing, particularly to those unfamiliar with it, that may seem difficult to comprehend. A court, when sentencing, needs to assess the objective seriousness of an offence within the range of conduct with which offences of that kind are concerned. Therefore, somewhat counter-intuitively to the uninitiated, when dealing with a sentence for the offence of murder, a crime that would universally be considered the most serious of offences, the Court must assess the objective culpability of the offender and must determine where, in the range of seriousness of offences within this category, this particular offence fits.
The maximum sentence fixed by Parliament is imposed only in the worst category of offences. In the case of murder, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Parliament has set a further guidepost in the imposition of a sentence for murder, being a standard non-parole period said to be applicable to a “mid-range” offence. The standard non-parole period for murder is 20 years’ imprisonment.
In order to ascertain whether a murder is in the worst category, one does not rule out such a possibility simply because one can imagine worse conduct. Unfortunately, one can always imagine worse conduct.
Instead, the Court must assess the features of the offence and the circumstances of its commission in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 323
Decision Date: 30 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Colin Maxwell Farrow, the defendant was convicted of the murder of his wife, Elizabeth Farrow. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the sentencing of the defendant, who had a history of mental illness. The court was required to determine whether the mitigating factors, including the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence, should be given significant weight in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court considered both the objective and subjective circumstances surrounding the case. Objectively, the court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family. Subjectively, the court took into account the defendant's mental health, including his diagnosis of schizophrenia and the effect it had on his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions. The court had to balance these factors to determine an appropriate sentence that was both proportionate to the gravity of the offence and reflective of the defendant's individual circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the significant impact of the defendant's mental illness on his actions. However, it also acknowledged the gravity of the crime, which involved the brutal murder of the defendant's wife. Ultimately, the court determined that while the defendant's mental illness was a significant mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need for public protection. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a mental health treatment order to ensure he receives appropriate care and treatment during his incarceration.

Orders