R v Farkas - [2023] QCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Farkas [2023] QCA 84

PARTIES:

R
v
FARKAS, Ferenc
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 55 of 2023
DC No 223 of 2023
DC No 541 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2023 (Kefford DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2023

JUDGES:

Dalton and Flanagan JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while under the influence with respect to driving of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to a period of five years’ imprisonment – where the sentence was suspended after serving six months imprisonment – where the sentence had an operational period of five years – where the applicant agreed to drive himself and his wife to a service station under the influence of alcohol – where the applicant drove erratically and ran through an intersection before veering off road and crashing head-on into a tree – where the applicant’s wife suffered critical injuries and died days later – where the applicant’s blood alcohol content was recorded at 0.170 per cent after the crash – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in finding the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s driving was not required because it constituted labelling – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in not reducing “the general deterrence” in the circumstances because of the applicant’s extra-curial punishment – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s driving was required – whether the general deterrence component of the sentence should have been reduced – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Blackaby[2010] QCA 84, considered
R v Chmieluk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2018) 86 MVR 164; [2018] QCA 271, cited
R v Evans[2005] QCA 455, considered
R v Hoad (2005) 43 MVR 475; [2005] QCA 92, considered
R v Maher[2012] QCA 7, cited
R v Middleton[2021] QCA 288, considered
R v Thomas (2015) 69 MVR 521; [2015] QCA 20, considered
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Jackson for the applicant
E L Kelso for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Clarity Law for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DALTON JA: I agree with the order…

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 R v Farkas

Details

AGLC: R v Farkas [2023] QCA 84
Case: [2023] QCA 84
Decision Date: 2 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Farkas, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the sentencing judge following his guilty pleas to dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and driving under the influence. The applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, suspended after six months, with a further operational period of five years. The applicant had driven himself and his wife to a service station while under the influence of alcohol, resulting in a fatal accident where his wife suffered critical injuries and later died. The applicant's blood alcohol content was recorded at 0.170 per cent post-crash.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the sentencing judge erred in not assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's driving, whether the general deterrence component of the sentence should have been reduced considering the applicant's extra-curial punishment, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge should have assessed the nature and seriousness of the driving, the general deterrence component should have been reduced, and the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court determined that the sentencing judge did not err in finding that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant's driving was not required as it constituted labelling. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the general deterrence component should not have been reduced. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Farkas [2023] QCA 84
PARTIES:	R v FARKAS, Ferenc (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 55 of 2023 DC No 223 of 2023 DC No 541 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 21 March 2023 (Kefford DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2023
JUDGES:	Dalton and Flanagan JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while under the influence with respect to driving of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to a period of five years’ imprisonment – where the sentence was suspended after serving six months imprisonment – where the sentence had an operational period of five years – where the applicant agreed to drive himself and his wife to a service station under the influence of alcohol – where the applicant drove erratically and ran through an intersection before veering off road and crashing head-on into a tree – where the applicant’s wife suffered critical injuries and died days later – where the applicant’s blood alcohol content was recorded at 0.170 per cent after the crash – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in finding the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s driving was not required because it constituted labelling – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentencing judge erred in not reducing “the general deterrence” in the circumstances because of the applicant’s extra-curial punishment – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s driving was required – whether the general deterrence component of the sentence should have been reduced – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Blackaby[2010] QCA 84, considered R v Chmieluk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2018) 86 MVR 164; [2018] QCA 271, cited R v Evans[2005] QCA 455, considered R v Hoad (2005) 43 MVR 475; [2005] QCA 92, considered R v Maher[2012] QCA 7, cited R v Middleton[2021] QCA 288, considered R v Thomas (2015) 69 MVR 521; [2015] QCA 20, considered Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Jackson for the applicant E L Kelso for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Clarity Law for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent