R v Farrer

Case [2017] SASCFC 27

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v FARRER

[2017] SASCFC 27

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Vanstone, The Honourable Justice Kelly and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)

10 April 2017

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE  - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM - GENERALLY

Appeal against sentence.

On 21 October 2016, the appellant was sentenced for aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident after causing death. The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment on the first count and two years imprisonment on the second, one year of which was to be served concurrently with the four year term. The Judge set a non-parole period of three years, two months and 12 days.

At the time of sentence the appellant had a 15-month old child who was born some 18 months after the incident. Whether sentence is manifestly excessive - whether the Judge gave appropriate and adequate weight to the effect of imprisonment on the applicant’s young child – whether special reasons existed to suspend the sentence or make a home detention order – whether the Judge erred in accumulating any part of the two head sentences.

Held per Kelly J (Vanstone & Nicholson JJ agreeing) dismissing the appeal:

1.       The sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances and permission to appeal on that ground is refused.

2.       The Judge gave appropriate weight to all of the appellant’s circumstances including the effect of imprisonment on the appellant’s child.

3.       The Judge demonstrated no error in refusing to suspend the sentence.

4. The Judge gave due consideration to the issue of home detention in refusing to make an order under s 33BB of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA).

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10(1)(n), s 18A, s 33BB, s 38, s 58(4)(a); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19AB; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, referred to.
R v Wooldridge (2015) 123 SASR 422; R v Payne (2004) 89 SASR 49; R v Buckskin [2010] SASC 138; Police v Holer [2016] SASC 187; R v Dell; R v Dell [2016] SASCFC 156, applied.
R v Constant (2016) 126 SASR 1, distinguished.
R v Farrer [2016] SADC 49; R v Farrer [2017] SASCFC 3, discussed.

R v FARRER
[2017] SASCFC 27

Court of Criminal Appeal: Vanstone, Kelly and Nicholson JJ

  1. VANSTONE J.      I agree with the orders proposed by Kelly J and with the reasons she has written.

    KELLY J.

  2. Samantha Magdaleine Farrer appeals against a sentence imposed in the District Court for aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident after causing death. 

  3. The sentence imposed was four years imprisonment on the first count and two years imprisonment…

Continue reading R v Farrer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Farrer [2017] SASCFC 27
Case
[2017] SASCFC 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, R v Farrer, in the South Australian District Court. The appellant had been convicted of culpable driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death. The appeal was brought before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Vanstone, Kelly, and Nicholson JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to suspend the sentence or make a home detention order, and whether the judge erred in accumulating parts of the two head sentences.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the final head sentence imposed was moderate and the non-parole period was merciful. The court agreed with the reasons of Kelly J, who had previously dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction. The factual background involved the appellant colliding with a cyclist while driving under the influence of methylamphetamine, causing the cyclist's death, and subsequently leaving the scene of the accident. The sentencing judge had found that it was objectively dangerous for the appellant to drive given her drug consumption and the known effects of amphetamines.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Upon the appeal it is put that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the Judge erred in failing to suspend it or to make a home detention order, and that there was error in the Judge accumulating any part of the two head sentences. Background This Court, as presently constituted, recently delivered judgment dismissing the appellant’s appeal against conviction. The following account of the facts is taken from the judgment of Kelly J in that appeal: R v Farrer [2017] SASCFC 3. The offences occurred during the mid-morning of 27 December 2013 on the Inman Valley Road between Yankalilla and Victor Harbor. At that time the deceased was riding her bicycle towards Victor Harbor. There was a flashing red light under the back of her bicycle seat. The appellant was driving a Holden sedan in the same direction but was behind the deceased. On a straight level section of the road the left side front bumper bar of the Holden struck the rear wheel of the deceased’s bicycle causing her to be thrown back over the left side of the car’s bonnet, hitting and shattering the left side of the windscreen, with her helmet hitting the roof of the car. There was no dispute about the police investigator’s estimate that the appellant was travelling in the vicinity of 50 to 60 kilometres per hour at the time of impact. There was no evidence of braking. A lone cyclist following behind the deceased said that shortly before the collision the Holden vehicle was travelling at about 20 to 30 kilometres per hour, but that then it accelerated and drove away. Although the appellant and her passenger had been heading for Victor Harbor, planning to see her father, after the collision she determined to drive instead to Adelaide. She was stopped by police on the Southern Expressway at about half past eleven that morning, not far from Adelaide. When questioned about the obvious damage to the left side of the Holden vehicle, the appellant told the officer that she had hit a post. A blood sample was taken from her at 12.57 pm that day. The sample revealed the presence of 0.43 milligrams of methylamphetamine per litre of blood and small quantities of other drugs including amphetamine, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Amphetamine, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are all constituents of prescription medications and used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Evidence of the movements of the appellant prior to the collision came from her passenger, Mr Repanich. He said that on the night before the collision he and the appellant had driven together from his home at Collinswood to Cape Jervis. There, Mr Repanich went fishing. The next morning they travelled together toward Victor Harbor, the appellant driving. The location of the collision was about 60 kilometres from Cape Jervis. In the course of the reasons of the Judge for finding the appellant guilty of both offences, His Honour found that the appellant had been awake from the evening of the night before until after the collision. The Judge made no finding as to whether the collision was due to the appellant having fallen asleep at the wheel, although the appellant told police she was trying to stay awake. The Judge also found that most, if not all, of the methylamphetamine detected in her blood had been consumed by the appellant before the collision. The Judge found that it was objectively dangerous for the appellant to drive knowing that amphetamines initially caused sleepiness and then, a great need for sleep.[1] The Judge also found that, contrary to her assertion to police, the appellant had left the scene of the accident “knowing full well that she had collided with someone and having quite quickly decided to return to Adelaide…”[2][1] R v Farrer [2016] SADC 49 at [148].[2] R v Farrer [2016] SADC 49 at [110].

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

VANSTONE J NICHOLSON J
The final head sentence was moderate and the non-parole period was merciful.Conclusion For these reasons I would:1. Refuse permission to appeal on ground 1; and 2. Dismiss the appeal. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Kelly J. There is nothing I can usefully add.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: VANSTONE J, NICHOLSON J

Full text does not contain this section.