R v Farr - [2018] QCA 41

[2018] QCA 41

COURT OF APPEAL

GOTTERSON JA
PHILIPPIDES JA
DOUGLAS J

CA No 191 of 2017
DC No 324 of 2017
DC No 325 of 2017

THE QUEEN

FARR, Cameron John Applicant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 20 MARCH 2018

JUDGMENT

PHILIPPIDES JA: The applicant was convicted on 26 July 2017 on his pleas to one count of attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of serious assault and 19 summary offences. He was sentenced as follows: for the burglary and commit indictable offence: three years imprisonment; for two offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle: two years imprisonment and 18 months imprisonment respectively; for each offence of enter dwelling with intent and cause serious assault: 12 months imprisonment; and for each offence of attempted unlawfully using a motor vehicle, common assault and obstruct police officer: six months imprisonment. In relation to the other summary offences, which comprised two offences of possess dangerous drugs, two offences of trespass, a charge of breach of bail, three offences of failure to appear, two offences of driving without a licence and one offence of receiving tainted property, the applicant was convicted and not further punished. On all charges, convictions were recorded and the sentences were to be served concurrently. A parole eligibility date was set as at the day of sentence, 26 July 2017, and a declaration was made as to 397 days from 24 June 2016 to 25 July 2017 being served as pre-sentence custody.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal the sentences on the basis that they are, in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive. In relation to the circumstances of the offending, a summary has been usefully set out by the respondent in its submissions.

On 18 August 2015, the applicant was found unconscious at the Robina Railway Station, having apparently suffered an overdose. Three wads of methandienone, an anabolic steroid, was found inside his underpants. That constituted one of the summary offences of possess dangerous drugs. On 16 October 2015, the applicant was walking down Wynnum Road into oncoming traffic. He ran from police but was apprehended. In his underwear, was located a number of buprenorphine strips, and that constituted the summary offence of possess dangerous drug. When in police custody he indicated that he had suffered a heroin overdose earlier that day. An ambulance was called. In the back of the ambulance the applicant kicked a police officer in the chest and groin; that constituted the summary offence of serious assault. He was physically restrained. The applicant attempted, unsuccessfully, to spit on another police officer, and that constituted the summary offence of common assault. The ambulance stopped and a police officer attempted to calm the applicant. He continued to violently resist and had to be sedated; that constituted the summary offence of obstruct police officer.

On 16 April 2016, the applicant and others broke into a residence at Capalaba by removing a flyscreen on the back window. Once inside, a large quantity of property was taken,…

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 Farr

Details

AGLC: R v Farr [2018] QCA 41
Case: [2018] QCA 41
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Farr was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Gotterson JA, Philippides JA, and Douglas J presiding. The applicant, Cameron John Farr, had been convicted of various offences including attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle, serious assault, and 19 summary offences. Farr was sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment for the burglary and commit indictable offence, with additional sentences for other offences, all to be served concurrently. Farr sought leave to appeal the sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive. The Court examined the nature of the offending, Farr's criminal history, and the sentencing judge's considerations in imposing the sentences.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether there had been an error in the sentencing process. Farr argued that his sentence was excessive compared to a co-offender's sentence and that a suspended sentence should have been imposed instead. The Court considered the principles of sentencing and the sentencing judge's observations on the need to protect the community and Farr's extensive criminal history.

The Court found that the sentences were within the sound exercise of the sentencing discretion. The judges noted that the applicant's criminal history demonstrated a propensity towards property offending and a failure to reform. The Court also highlighted that the sentencing judge had appropriately moderated the sentences to reflect the pleas by setting a parole eligibility date as at the date of sentence. The Court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original sentencing, ruling that the sentences imposed were appropriate and within the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The judges agreed that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence should be refused.

Orders