R v Farrell

In the case of R v Farrell, the respondent was convicted of possessing an unauthorised pistol. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that it was inadequate. The Crown submitted that the respondent had come into possession of the firearm essentially by chance, not as a consequence of deliberately sourcing it. There was no evidence that the respondent possessed the firearm for any intended criminal purpose, nor that he intended to use it, sell it, or cause harm with it.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate. The court had to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in finding that the offending was not objectively serious or grave, and whether the sentence fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the respondent's already spent time in custody.

The court found that the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending was not flawed, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court held that the respondent had come into possession of the firearm by chance, and there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the offending was objectively serious or grave. The court further found that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order, was appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that the respondent had already spent 9½ months in custody solely in respect of the same charge, and that the sentence did not result in double punishment for the same offence.

The court dismissed the Crown's appeal against the sentence, holding that it was not manifestly inadequate. The court found that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate and reflected the circumstances of the case.