Legal Research
Cases
R v Perese

R v Perese

Case [2001] NSWCCA 478 13 December 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
126 A Crim R 508

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Perese [2001] NSWCCA 478 revised - 14/12/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60455/00

HEARING DATE(S): 2 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 December 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
Jonathon Perese

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; McClellan J at 59

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/12/0190

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL : P G Berman SC (Crown)
T S Corish (Appl)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - whether principles in R v Henry & Ors applied - whether adequate weight given to plea of guilty - whether sentencing judge erred by not separately identifying the component of the sentence relating to different offences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 33(3)

CASES CITED:
R v Henry & ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) HCA 64
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Barton [2001] 1 NSWCCA 63
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
R v Harris [2001] NSWCCA 322
R v Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5; 118 A Crim R 131
R v Dawson [2000] NSWCCA 399

DECISION: See para 94

60455/00

BEAZLEY JA

HULME J

McCLELLAN J

THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2001

REGINA v Jonathon PERESE

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with McClellan J.

2 HULME J: On 26 May 2000, Judge Kirkham sentenced the applicant for leave to appeal in respect of a charge that, on 12 February 1999 at Parramatta in the company of other persons he robbed a bank officer of approximately $99,000, the property of the National Australia Bank.

3 Taken into account was a further offence of, on 17 June 1999, again in company, robbing another bank officer of some $26,500, the property of Westpac Banking Corporation.

4 Pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act each offence carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment although, because the second was taken into account and not itself the subject of a separate charge, no penalty greater than the twenty years prescribed in respect of the first charge could be imposed – see Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 33(3).

5 The sentence which was imposed was one of six years and six months imprisonment. Finding special circumstances in the applicant’s youth, contrition and regret which his Honour accepted as genuine, the view that the applicant’s prospect for rehabilitation was good and his need for an extended period of supervision by the Probation and Parole Service after the applicant’s release, his Honour imposed a non parole period of four years. Both periods were ordered to commence upon the date of the applicant’s arrest namely 17 June 1999.

6 In…

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 Perese

Details

AGLC: R v Perese [2001] NSWCCA 478
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 478
Decision Date: 13 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Perese, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences including attempted murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and assault with intent to commit indictable offence. The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal raised several legal issues concerning the principles of sentencing, the weight given to the appellant's plea of guilty, and whether the sentencing judge erred by not separately identifying the components of the sentence relating to the different offences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the principles outlined in R v Henry & Ors were correctly applied. Additionally, the court had to determine if adequate weight was given to the appellant's plea of guilty and whether the sentencing judge erred by not separately identifying the components of the sentence that related to the different offences. These issues were critical in assessing the fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the need for consistency and proportionality in sentences. It highlighted the importance of giving appropriate weight to a plea of guilty, which typically reduces the severity of the sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the principles set out in R v Henry & Ors, which emphasise the need to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors such as a guilty plea. Furthermore, the court noted that the sentencing judge's failure to separately identify the components of the sentence for each offence could have led to an imbalance in the overall sentence. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing process had not been conducted correctly.

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the sentencing court for reconsideration. The court emphasised the need for a clear and reasoned approach to sentencing that appropriately balances the severity of the offences with the mitigating factors, including the plea of guilty. The case underscores the importance of correctly applying sentencing principles to ensure that sentences are fair, proportionate, and consistent with legal standards.

Orders