JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 June 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Farrell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 414

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Contested facts – Single stab wound to the chest – Whether excessive self-defence – Youthful offender – Strong family support – Good prospects for rehabilitation – Sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years – Sentencing Act 1991, s 5, 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Dickie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Matthews	Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Rian Farrell, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Liam Cahill. A plea was made on your behalf on 8 June 2021. The circumstances that bring you before this Court are very tragic. You regarded Liam Cahill as your best friend. You were born in the same year as Liam Cahill and were only few months apart in age.[1] You went to the same primary and secondary school and shared similar friends and interests. You were both pursuing plumbing apprenticeships. Despite your friendship with Liam, you must now take responsibility for causing his death.
[1]Liam Cahill was born 30 August 1997. Rian Farrell was born 14 October 1997.

Liam died on 30 May 2020 when you stabbed him in the chest with a large knife during a fight. Although you only stabbed him once, the resulting injury was severe, and death occurred within a very short time.

Procedural history

You were arrested soon after the incident and taken into custody. You voluntarily participated in a formal record of interview and were remanded and charged with murder. On 27 October 2020, you were committed to this Court for trial.[2] On 18 and 19 February 2021, six Crown witnesses were cross-examined under the fast-track process initiated by this Court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[3] On 19 March 2021, you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter. The plea offer was accepted, and on 14 April 2021 you were arraigned and formally pleaded guilty. You have been in custody since your arrest.
[2]Following a fast-tracked committal that proceeded on the basis of submissions only.
[3]Under s 198B of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

During the plea hearing, the Crown read out a summary of facts.[4] Both the Crown and your counsel tendered written submissions.[5] The factual basis of your offending was largely agreed between the Crown and your counsel, but there was dispute about whether your behaviour could be characterised as excessive self-defence. It was not in dispute that you stabbed Liam Cahill in the chest, during a physical fight. You told police who interviewed you that immediately before the stabbing, you believed Liam Cahill was reaching for a bottle, and…

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 Farrell

Details

AGLC: R v Farrell [2021] VSC 414
Case: [2021] VSC 414
Decision Date: 13 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Farrell, the defendant stood before the Supreme Court of Victoria, charged with the manslaughter of a person by virtue of a plea of guilty. The crux of the dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Farrell, a youthful offender, who had admitted to fatally stabbing a man in a confrontation. The case presented a challenge for the court to balance the severity of the offence with the circumstances that may have mitigated the defendant's culpability, particularly in light of his age and the support structures in place for his rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with determining whether the use of lethal force by Farrell was an excessive response to the circumstances, as claimed by the prosecution. In considering this, the court had to assess the contested facts surrounding the incident, which involved a single stab wound to the chest of the victim. Additionally, the court had to weigh the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the sentencing process, in accordance with the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the gravity of the offence, yet acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by the defence. These included the defendant's age, the strong family support system available to him, and his good prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that while the act of stabbing the victim was a serious breach of the peace, the defendant's plea of guilty and the absence of prior criminal history were significant mitigating factors. Consequently, the court sentenced Farrell to seven years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, reflecting a balanced approach that considered both the need for punishment and the potential for reform.

The final orders of the court mandated that Farrell serve the determined sentence, with the non-parole period serving as a benchmark for his eventual release, contingent upon his behaviour and rehabilitation progress.

Orders