Legal Research
Cases
R v Yandle

R v Yandle

Case [2024] SASCA 111 12 September 2024

Appeal

Charge

Sentencing

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
R v YANDLE
[2024] SASCA 111
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice David)
12 September 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEALS BY CROWN
This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for permission to appeal against sentence.
Following a plea of guilty, the respondent was sentenced for one count of assisting an offender, in contravention of s 241(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The respondent was sentenced on the basis that, having witnessed his father, Mr Keith Yandle, murder Mr Steven Murphy, the respondent secreted items belonging to Mr Murphy, and later lied to police, intending to assist his father to escape apprehension.
From a starting point of imprisonment for two years, which was then reduced by 15 per cent for the respondent’s guilty plea, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment of one year, eight months and 13 days, with a non-parole period of one year and one month. The effect of this was that, at the date of sentencing, the respondent’s non-parole period had expired, and a balance of about five months of the head sentence remained to be served. The sentencing judge was satisfied that there was good reason to suspend the balance of the respondent’s head sentence, upon the respondent entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.
The Director contends that the sentencing judge erred in purporting to impose a partially suspended sentence pursuant to s 96(4) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (Ground 1) and in declining to view the CCTV footage of the murder by Mr Yandle (Ground 2). In Ground 3, the Director contends that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
Held (per the Court), granting permission to appeal against sentence, allowing the appeal on Ground 1, setting aside the sentence imposed at first instance and resentencing the respondent:
1.The sentencing judge erred in purporting to partially suspend a sentence when not authorised by law to do so and in imposing a bond which may be vulnerable to challenge;
2.The sentencing judge did not err in failing to view the CCTV footage;
3.The sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate;
4.In resentencing the appellant, the Court commences with a notional head sentence of imprisonment for two years and six months;
5.After reductions for the respondent’s guilty plea and time already served, the respondent is resentenced to imprisonment for 10 months and 19 days; and
6.The sentence is suspended upon the respondent entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and otherwise in the terms contemplated by the sentencing judge.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 241, 241(1)(b), 241(3), 340(a); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 38(2a); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) ss 150(a), 157(1)(a)(iii); Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) r 93.5(2); Sentencing…

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 Yandle

Details

AGLC: R v Yandle [2024] SASCA 111
Case: [2024] SASCA 111
Decision Date: 12 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Yandle, in the District Court. The respondent had pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning death. The Crown contended that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, suspended upon the respondent entering into a recognisance of $1000 to be of good behaviour for two years, was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was so lenient as to be outside the bounds of a proper exercise of discretion, thereby justifying intervention on appeal. This required the Court to consider the principles governing sentencing for dangerous driving occasioning death, including the gravity of the offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors such as the respondent's early guilty plea and remorse.

In its reasoning, the Court of Criminal Appeal acknowledged the sentencing judge's consideration of the respondent's remorse and the tragic circumstances of the death. However, their Honours emphasised the seriousness of the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death and the paramount importance of general deterrence in such cases. The Court found that the sentencing judge had placed too much weight on the mitigating factors and had failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending conduct and the devastating impact on the victim's family. The Court concluded that the suspended sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the original sentence, and resentenced the respondent to two years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months.

Orders