R v Perini; ex parte (No 2)

Case [2011] QCA 384

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Perini; ex parte A-G (Qld) (No 2) [2011] QCA 384

PARTIES:

R
v
PERINI, Maurizio
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2010
SC No 325 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 December 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser and Chesterman JJA concurring as to the orders made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

2.   Set aside the sentence of 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter and substitute instead a sentence of 18 years imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to manslaughter, two counts of burglary and two counts of interference with a corpse – where the respondent was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment on the remaining offences – where appellant's original appeal to the Court of Appeal pre-dated the High Court's decision in Lacey v Attorney General of Queensland (2011) 85 ALJR 508 – where the High Court remitted the matter to the Court of appeal for further consideration – where the appellant argues the sentence was manifestly inadequate and failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, properly punish and denounce the offences and failed to give sufficient weight to community protection – where the appellant further argued the sentence gave too much weight to matters of mitigation – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304A, s 669A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 9A, s 9

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, cited
Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372; [1989] HCA 39, cited
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland (2011) 85 ALJR 508; [2011] HCA 10, applied
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 1154; [2011] HCA 39, considered
Re Perini [2009] QMHC 27, considered
R v Aeon-Masterson, Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, Qld, CA No 112 of 1990, 12 June 1990, considered
R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, distinguished
R v Manson [1974] Qd R 191, cited
R v Miguel [1994] QCA 512, considered
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA…

Continue reading R v Perini; ex parte (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Perini; ex parte A-G (Qld) (No 2) [2011] QCA 384
Case
[2011] QCA 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Perini, appealed against his sentence for a series of serious offences, including manslaughter, burglary, and interference with a corpse. The Court of Appeal initially upheld the sentence, but the High Court's decision in Lacey v Attorney General of Queensland prompted the Court of Appeal to reconsider the matter. Perini argued that the sentence of 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the gravity of the crimes, properly punish and denounce the offences, or sufficiently weigh community protection. He also contended that the sentence had given excessive weight to mitigating factors.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It examined the severity of the crimes, the need for punishment and denunciation, and the importance of community protection. The court assessed whether the sentence had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors. Given the gravity of the offences, the court found the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and failed to properly punish and denounce them. It also concluded that the sentence had given too much weight to mitigating factors and did not sufficiently consider community protection.

In light of these findings, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence. It set aside the original sentence of 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter and substituted it with a sentence of 18 years imprisonment. This decision aimed to ensure the sentence more appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences, adequately punished and denounced them, and gave sufficient weight to community protection.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against sentence allowed.

2. Set aside the sentence of 13 years imprisonment for manslaughter and substitute instead a sentence of 18 years imprisonment.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.