Legal Research
Cases
R v Pearce

R v Pearce

Case [2020] NSWCCA 61 3 April 2020

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: R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
Hearing dates: 18 March 2020
Date of orders: 18 March 2020
Decision date: 03 April 2020
Before: Leeming JA;
Rothman J;
N Adams J
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – attempt to pervert course of justice – offender pleaded guilty to making false statement to police – statement gave alibi to friend being investigated for sexual assault – offender sentenced on agreed facts – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to find that offender instigated idea of a false statement – whether error in assessment of objective seriousness – whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to full extent of offender's criminality – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 319
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 17D(4), 89(4)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 4(2)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Carroll v The Queen [2009] HCA 13; 83 ALJR 579
Casella v R [2019] NSWCCA 201
Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213
Craig-Bridges v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2017] NSWCA 197
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87; 200 A Crim R 1
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
R v AB [2017] NSWCCA 88
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
R v Kennedy [2019] NSWCCA 242
R v Khoury [2018] NSWCCA 223
R v Kirkland [2005] NSWCCA 130
R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
Voronov v R [2017] NSWCCA 241
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Appellant)
Brenton Luke Pearce (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Curtis (Appellant)
P Boulten SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
M Blair (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/00341974
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

20 December 2019

Before:

Smith SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/00341974

Judgment

THE COURT: On 18 March 2020, after the conclusion of submissions, the Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal, brought pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), against the sentence imposed on Mr Brenton Luke Pearce by the District Court following his guilty plea to one count of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, contrary to Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319. These are our reasons for that order.
We should say immediately that we regard the sentence, which was 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order, accompanied by 100 hours of community service, as one which would have been manifestly inadequate if…

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 Pearce

Details

AGLC: R v Pearce [2020] NSWCCA 61
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date: 03 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pearce, was convicted and sentenced for attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false statement to police. The statement was made to provide an alibi for a friend who was under investigation for sexual assault. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in several respects. The primary errors alleged were the failure to find that Pearce instigated the idea of the false statement, an incorrect assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, and the failure to consider the full extent of Pearce's criminal conduct. Pearce argued that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court examined the sentencing judge's approach and noted that the judge had carefully considered the relevant factors, including the nature of the offence, the offender's role, and the impact of the false statement. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's failure to find that Pearce instigated the idea of the false statement, as the evidence did not support such a finding. Regarding the assessment of objective seriousness, the court held that the sentencing judge had correctly evaluated the circumstances of the case and appropriately considered the impact of the false statement on the investigation. The court also found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the full extent of Pearce's criminal conduct, as evidenced by the detailed sentencing remarks.

Given the thoroughness of the sentencing judge's assessment and the absence of any significant errors, the court dismissed the appeal. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate in all the circumstances, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the offender's role in attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Orders