R v Farquhar

This matter concerned an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Farquhar, for drug trafficking offences. The appeal was heard by Lovell, David and Nicholson JJ.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the Crown had satisfied the stringent criteria required to justify an appeal against sentence, particularly in circumstances where the sentence at first instance was considered manifestly inadequate. The court was required to determine if the prosecution had demonstrated that public policy considerations, which might override double jeopardy principles, had been made out.

The court reasoned that for a Crown appeal against sentence to succeed, it was not sufficient merely to establish that the original sentence was plainly wrong or inadequate. The prosecution bore the onus of persuading the appellate court that a specific public policy consideration, justifying the setting aside of double jeopardy concerns, had been met. In this instance, the court found that the prosecution had failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The court also commented on the potential for subsection 26(2a) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) to be a "backward step" in sentencing practice.