R v Farkas

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.