R v Standley
Case
•
[2016] SASCFC 141
•21 December 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Standley [2016] SASCFC 141
[2016] SASCFC 141
21 December 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *R v Standley* concerned a sentencing decision made by a judge in relation to drug offences and driving while disqualified. The appellant, who was 70 years old at the time of the appeal, had been convicted of trafficking in commercial and large commercial quantities of cannabis, cultivating cannabis plants, possessing prescribed equipment, diverting electricity, and driving while disqualified on two separate occasions. The appeal was heard by Kelly, Blue, and Doyle JJ.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the objective circumstances of the offending and the appellant's age and prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to determine the appropriate head sentences for the various offences and the appropriate non-parole period to be served.
Blue J, with whom Doyle J agreed, reasoned that while the appellant's criminal history and poor prospects of rehabilitation were relevant considerations, his advanced age of 70 was a significant factor that warranted a lower proportion of the head sentence being fixed as a non-parole period. The court acknowledged the gravity of the drug trafficking and cultivation offences but ultimately concluded that a non-parole period of five years was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's age and the fact that he would be in his mid-70s when parole was considered.
The appeal was allowed, and the original sentences were set aside. The appellant was re-sentenced to a total of eight years and eight months imprisonment for the drug and equipment offences, deemed to have commenced on 14 April 2015. An additional sentence of two months and two weeks was imposed for one of the driving while disqualified offences, to be served cumulatively upon a prior sentence for the other driving offence, which was also to be served cumulatively upon the main sentence. A non-parole period of five years was fixed, deemed to have commenced on 14 April 2015.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the non-parole period fixed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the objective circumstances of the offending and the appellant's age and prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to determine the appropriate head sentences for the various offences and the appropriate non-parole period to be served.
Blue J, with whom Doyle J agreed, reasoned that while the appellant's criminal history and poor prospects of rehabilitation were relevant considerations, his advanced age of 70 was a significant factor that warranted a lower proportion of the head sentence being fixed as a non-parole period. The court acknowledged the gravity of the drug trafficking and cultivation offences but ultimately concluded that a non-parole period of five years was appropriate, taking into account the appellant's age and the fact that he would be in his mid-70s when parole was considered.
The appeal was allowed, and the original sentences were set aside. The appellant was re-sentenced to a total of eight years and eight months imprisonment for the drug and equipment offences, deemed to have commenced on 14 April 2015. An additional sentence of two months and two weeks was imposed for one of the driving while disqualified offences, to be served cumulatively upon a prior sentence for the other driving offence, which was also to be served cumulatively upon the main sentence. A non-parole period of five years was fixed, deemed to have commenced on 14 April 2015.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Charge
-
Sentencing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Standley [2016] SASCFC 141
Most Recent Citation
R v Hyatt [2019] QCA 106
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Trott-Dan v The King
[2023] SASCA 2
Quick v The Queen
[2020] SASCFC 92
Da Silva v The Queen
[2020] SASCFC 66
Cases Cited
29
Statutory Material Cited
1
R v Faehrmann; R v Moore; R v Price-Austin
[2014] SASCFC 25
R v Taylor; R v Teekens
[2022] SASCA 79
Cited Sections