R v Parrott - [2018] SASCFC 78

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v PARROTT
[2018] SASCFC 78
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Peek, The Honourable Justice Lovell and The Honourable Justice Doyle)
14 August 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY - SENTENCE
The appellant was charged with the offence of Recklessly Causing Serious Harm in breach of s 23(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The appellant eventually pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of Recklessly Causing Harm in breach of s 24(2). After a reduction of 10% on account of the plea the appellant was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.
The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.
Held by Lovell J (Peek and Doyle JJ agreeing), allowing the appeal:
1. A starting point of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment is outside the permissible range of sentences.
2. The appellant is to be resentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 14 months. Both the sentence and the non-parole period are to run from 13 December 2017.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, s 23(3), 24(2), referred to.
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; R v Dransfield [2016] SASCFC 68; R v Teremoana (1990) 54 SASR 30, considered.

R v PARROTT
[2018] SASCFC 78
Court of Criminal Appeal: Peek, Lovell and Doyle JJ
PEEK J:

I agree with the orders proposed by Lovell J and with his reasons.
LOVELL J:
Overview
On 10 October 2015, the appellant went to the house of the victim to confront him about an incident that had occurred at the place at which both men worked. The appellant struck the victim to the head with an open hand. The victim fell, hitting his head on a pillar and on the ground; he suffered significant injuries. After a plea of guilty and a reduction of 10% on account of the plea, the appellant was sentenced in the District Court of South Australia to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. On appeal, the appellant contended that the sentence was, in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive. For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal and resentence the appellant.
The offending
The appellant and the victim had been friends for many years. The victim employed the appellant at his golf business. On 2 October 2015, there was an incident at work which resulted in the victim sending the appellant home because of the way he had spoken to another employee.
On the night of 10 October 2015, the appellant went to…

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 Parrott

Details

AGLC: R v Parrott [2018] SASCFC 78
Case: [2018] SASCFC 78
Decision Date: 14 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Parrott* concerned an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Parrott, had pleaded guilty to an offence under s 31(1)(b) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA), which deals with acts likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The specific charge related to the appellant discharging a firearm in a public place, thereby endangering the lives of others.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing applicable to such offences, noting the gravity of discharging a firearm in a public place and the inherent danger posed to the community. While acknowledging the appellant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor, the judges ultimately found that the sentence imposed reflected an appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, given the seriousness of the conduct. The Court emphasised the need to protect the public from such dangerous behaviour.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders