R v Pesnak & Anor

In the case of R v Pesnak & Anor, the applicants, Pesnak and another, appealed against their sentences imposed following convictions for manslaughter by criminal negligence. The deceased, under their care, died after a period of fasting as part of their adherence to the Breatharianism lifestyle. The applicants did not seek medical attention for the deceased, leading to their criminal convictions. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the remorse shown by the applicants should be considered given that they had been tried. The court had to weigh the nature of the offence, the applicants' adherence to a controversial lifestyle, and their lack of action in seeking medical assistance against the severity of the sentences.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter by criminal negligence and the particular circumstances of the case. It examined the degree of negligence involved and the extent of the applicants' remorse. The court recognised that the applicants' adherence to Breatharianism and their failure to seek medical help were significant factors in the severity of the sentences. However, it also acknowledged the applicants' expressions of remorse and the impact of the loss on their lives. The court concluded that the sentences were indeed manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the applicants' remorse.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, and the sentences were vacated. The male applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving 18 months, and the female applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving nine months. The court also declared that the seven days spent in pre-sentence custody be deemed time already served under the sentences. This outcome reflects a balanced consideration of the severity of the offence, the applicants' lifestyle choices, and their remorse.