R v Peckham - [2003] NSWCCA 293

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v PECKHAM [2003] NSWCCA 293

FILE NUMBER(S):
60246/03

HEARING DATE(S): 3 October 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 03/10/2003

PARTIES:
Regina
Brent Paul Peckham

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/61/1096

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: D Frearson
Appellant: AJ Bellanto QC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: CK Smith
Appellant: P White

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

- 10 -

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60246/03
HULME J
GREG JAMES J
Friday, 3 October 2003

REGINA v Brent Paul PECKHAM

Judgment

HULME J: On 29 October 2002 this Applicant for leave to appeal where before the Local Court at Bathurst entered a plea of guilty to a charge that, on 4 June 2002 he robbed Jennifer Stanmore of some $2,941 whilst being then armed with a dangerous weapon, i.e. a shortened shotgun.
For this offence, on 18 December 2002 Judge Shillington sentenced the Applicant to imprisonment for 8 years, including a non-parole period of 6 years, both periods dating from the time the Applicant went into custody, viz 27 June 2002. His Honour regarded the Applicant as having entered his plea at the earliest opportunity and said that the Applicant was “entitled to a full discount for that fact”. His Honour declined to find special circumstances.
The circumstances of the offence were as follows. Miss Stanmore, a 45 year old woman was working as a cleaner at the Oxford Tavern at Bathurst. Just after 6.00am she heard a knock on the door and when she asked who was there received the answer “the police”. She opened the door and was confronted by the Applicant holding a sawn off shotgun which he pointed at her. He said, “let me in. I want money or I will shoot you”. He then swung the shotgun upwards and discharged a shot into the air. He then pushed Miss Stanmore and she fell onto her back. He made further threatening statements holding the shotgun towards her.
The Applicant then took items including cash from Miss Stanmore’s handbag including a credit card and asked for the pin number. There was an ATM machine in the premises to which the Applicant unsuccessfully sought access. He discovered a safe and on a trolley which was found, wheeled the safe out of the building. Once he was outside, Miss Stanmore locked the door and contacted the police.
A search later that day at the Applicant’s premises revealed some of the items which had been stolen. Sometime later the Applicant was arrested.
Miss Stanmore was badly affected by what happened. She has experienced severe levels of anxiety and moderate levels of depression and stress following the traumatic event. Her blood pressure has increased appreciably and the event has had a significant consequence on her financially.
Judge Shillington was asked to take into account three further offences committed by the Applicant on or about 5 June 2002.…

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 Peckham

Details

AGLC: R v Peckham [2003] NSWCCA 293
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 293
Decision Date: 3 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peckham involved a dispute between the Crown and the defendant, Peckham, before the Supreme Court of Victoria. Peckham was charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1958, including burglary and theft. The prosecution alleged that Peckham unlawfully entered a residence with the intent to commit theft, and subsequently stole property from within the premises. The court was tasked with determining Peckham's guilt on the charges presented.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the interpretation and application of the statutory definitions of burglary and theft under the Crimes Act 1958. Specifically, the court needed to establish whether the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently proved that Peckham had entered the premises unlawfully with the intent to commit theft, and subsequently stolen property from within. Additionally, the court examined the credibility and weight of the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and any forensic or circumstantial evidence.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Peckham had entered the premises without lawful authority and with the intent to commit theft. The evidence, including witness statements and the recovery of stolen property from Peckham, supported the allegations. The court concluded that the statutory elements of burglary and theft were met, and Peckham was found guilty on all charges. The reasoning was grounded in the clear statutory definitions and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

As a result, Peckham was sentenced by the court to imprisonment for a term determined by the judge, reflecting the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also ordered that any stolen property be returned to the rightful owner. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the legal definitions of criminal offences and the need for comprehensive evidence to support convictions.

Orders