R v Pedler
Case
•
[2018] SASCFC 6
•7 February 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Pedler [2018] SASCFC 6
[2018] SASCFC 6
7 February 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties in this matter were the appellant, R v Pedler, and the respondent, the Crown. The dispute concerned an appeal against the entirety of a sentence imposed on the appellant by a judge on 27 July 2017. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Vanstone, Kelly, and Doyle JJ.
The legal issues before the court were whether to grant an extension of time to appeal, and if so, to consider the appeal on its merits. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the remaining offences after one conviction had been quashed on a prior appeal. This involved reconsidering the concurrency of sentences for lesser offences with the sentences for sexual offences, and whether to increase the sentence for one of the sexual offences. The court also had to consider the application of section 354(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) in circumstances where offences were charged on separate instruments.
The court reasoned that while the appeal notice was imperfect, it would grant an extension of time and deal with the appeal on its merits. It noted that section 354(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) did not strictly apply as the offences were charged on separate instruments. Therefore, the court approached the task as a re-sentencing exercise for the five remaining offences. The court considered increasing the sentence for the aggravated indecent assault of M, but ultimately decided against it, finding the judge's assessment of the isolated offence to be within an appropriate range. The court also inferred that the judge had ordered concurrency for the bail and cannabis offences due to the totality principle, and agreed with the judge's decision not to give credit for home detention bail, given the breaches and the commission of a further offence while on bail.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence for the remaining offences. The appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment for aggravated indecent assault of M, eight months for possessing child pornography, two months for two counts of breaching bail, and three months and two weeks for cultivating cannabis. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, resulting in a total head sentence of two years, one month, and two weeks, with a non-parole period of 15 months and two weeks. The sentence was deemed to have commenced on 18 July 2017.
The legal issues before the court were whether to grant an extension of time to appeal, and if so, to consider the appeal on its merits. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the remaining offences after one conviction had been quashed on a prior appeal. This involved reconsidering the concurrency of sentences for lesser offences with the sentences for sexual offences, and whether to increase the sentence for one of the sexual offences. The court also had to consider the application of section 354(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) in circumstances where offences were charged on separate instruments.
The court reasoned that while the appeal notice was imperfect, it would grant an extension of time and deal with the appeal on its merits. It noted that section 354(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) did not strictly apply as the offences were charged on separate instruments. Therefore, the court approached the task as a re-sentencing exercise for the five remaining offences. The court considered increasing the sentence for the aggravated indecent assault of M, but ultimately decided against it, finding the judge's assessment of the isolated offence to be within an appropriate range. The court also inferred that the judge had ordered concurrency for the bail and cannabis offences due to the totality principle, and agreed with the judge's decision not to give credit for home detention bail, given the breaches and the commission of a further offence while on bail.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence for the remaining offences. The appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment for aggravated indecent assault of M, eight months for possessing child pornography, two months for two counts of breaching bail, and three months and two weeks for cultivating cannabis. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, resulting in a total head sentence of two years, one month, and two weeks, with a non-parole period of 15 months and two weeks. The sentence was deemed to have commenced on 18 July 2017.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Charge
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Pedler [2018] SASCFC 6
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Becirovic (No 2)
[2018] SASCFC 3
R v Becirovic (No 2)
[2018] SASCFC 3
R v Becirovic (No 2)
[2018] SASCFC 3