Legal Research
Cases
Perkins v R

Perkins v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 62 16 April 2018

Sentence Appeal

Plea of Guilty

Childhood Disadvantage

Substance Abuse

Prior Good Character

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
Hearing dates: 19 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 April 2018
Decision date: 16 April 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
White JA at [71];
Fullerton J at [91]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – murder – plea of guilty – whether childhood disadvantage taken into account – whether Bugmy principle raised – causes of applicant’s substance abuse – whether causes of substance abuse properly taken into account – whether prior good character taken into account – whether sentence manifestly excessive – grounds of appeal not made out – sentence appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 21A, s 44
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Baxter v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 237; (2007) A Crim R 284
Bichar v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 1
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; 201 A Crim R 379
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Bus v Sydney County Council (1989) 167 CLR 78
Buxton v R [2017] NSWCCA 169
Carr v R [2009] NSWSC 995
Crowley v R [2017] NSWCCA 99
Daniels v R [2016] NSWCCA 35
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Hanania v R [2012] NSWCCA 220
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
Ingrey v R [2016] NSWCCA 31
Kelly v R [2016] NSWCCA 246
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
King v R [2015] NSWCCA 99
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571
Lee v R [2011] NSWCCA 169
Lehn v R [2016] NSWCCA 255
Linden v R [2017] NSWCCA 321
MB v R [2013] NSWCCA 254
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115
R v Brooks (No 5) [2017] NSWSC 824
R v Cotterill [2012] NSWSC 89
R v Dehaybi; R v JD [2005] NSWSC 128
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Fuller [2016] NSWSC 815
R v Harvey [2007] NSWSC 871
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; 124 A Crim R 451
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Houri [2007] NSWSC 615
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
R v Nguyen [2007] NSWSC 389
R v PO [2017] NSWSC 757
R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080
R v Scott (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 678
R v Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1177
R…

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 Perkins v R

Details

AGLC: Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 62
Decision Date: 16 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perkins appealed against his sentence for murder, arguing that the sentencing court had failed to take into account his childhood disadvantages, the causes of his substance abuse, and his prior good character. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the grounds for appeal were not made out. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing court had properly taken into account the applicant's childhood disadvantages, the causes of his substance abuse, and his prior good character, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge had given appropriate weight to the applicant's childhood disadvantages, the causes of his substance abuse, and his prior good character. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the applicant's childhood disadvantages were relevant to the sentence but did not warrant a significantly lower sentence. The court found that the applicant's substance abuse was a significant factor in the offence but did not warrant a significantly lower sentence. The court also found that the applicant's prior good character was a relevant factor in the sentence but did not warrant a significantly lower sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and that the grounds for appeal were not made out.

The appeal was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the sentencing court was affirmed. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and that the grounds for appeal were not made out. The court found that the sentencing judge had given appropriate weight to the relevant factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the applicant's childhood disadvantages, the causes of his substance abuse, and his prior good character were relevant factors in the sentence but did not warrant a significantly lower sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders