R v Fanning

In the case of R v Fanning, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, and to breaking and entering and stealing, appealed against his sentence. The applicant sought to challenge the severity of the sentence, which was 18 months' imprisonment suspended after six months. The central issue before the court was whether this sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the principles outlined in section 9(2)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) had been appropriately considered.

The court had to determine if the sentence was so disproportionate that it could be deemed manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the relevant legislative principles. The applicant argued that the six-month suspension period was unduly harsh and that the disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for five years was excessive. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the principles that should guide the sentencing process under the relevant legislation.

Upon review, the court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive in the six-month suspension period, and that the disqualification period was also too long. The court recognised that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was disproportionately severe. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal against the sentence. The court varied the sentence by reducing the suspension period from six months to three months on each count, and also reduced the disqualification period from five years to two years. This adjustment was deemed appropriate to reflect the principles of the legislation and to ensure that the sentence was fair and proportionate to the offences committed.