R v Perkins - [2016] NSWSC 1080

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080
Hearing dates: 3 August 2016
Decision date: 05 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years and 6 months to date from 13 February 2014 and expire on 12 August 2034, comprising of a non-parole period of 15 years followed by a balance of the term of sentence of 5 years and 6 months. The first date upon which the offender will become eligible for possible release to parole is 12 February 2029.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – remarks on sentence – offender pleaded guilty to murder – multiple stab wounds to the deceased – offender and deceased both aged 18 years – intention to kill – no prior criminal record – no evidence of mental illness – evidence of remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 21A(3)(i), 21A(5AA), 28(4)
Cases Cited: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Andrew Perkins
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
C Watson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/46264

Judgment

Introduction

The trial of Andrew Perkins (the offender) and Rachel Manevski (the co-offender) was listed to commence by way of discussion of legal and logistical matters on Monday 11 July 2016, with the jury to be empanelled for a joint trial the following day, Tuesday 12 July 2016. On the earlier date, counsel for the offender sought time for an extended conference with his client. I granted that application, and subsequently the offender entered a plea of guilty to an indictment that contained a single count averring that, on 13 February 2014 at Niagara Park, he murdered Kieran Priestland (the deceased).
The proceedings on sentence with regard to the offender were stood over to 3 August 2016. In the meantime, the trial of the co-offender commenced on Wednesday 13 July 2016, and recently concluded. That means that, in sentencing the offender, it is important for me to put from my mind all of the evidence that was placed before the jury and me in the trial of the co-offender, as a matter of procedural fairness to both parties. The Crown Prosecutor and counsel for the offender explicitly endorsed that approach, and, with their assistance, I have adopted it.
The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life without possibility of parole. The Crown Prosecutor made no submission in support of the imposition of that ultimate sentence. There is also an applicable standard non-parole period, in the circumstances of this case, of 20 years. I regard both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period as important guideposts in my exercise of the sentencing discretion.
The plea of guilty entered by the offender is a solemn and public admission that he voluntarily…

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 Perkins

Details

AGLC: R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1080
Decision Date: 05 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the offender, Perkins, pleaded guilty to the murder of a deceased individual. The incident involved the deceased receiving multiple stab wounds, and both individuals were aged 18 years at the time. The offender's intention to kill was established, and there was no prior criminal record or evidence of mental illness. However, there was evidence of remorse presented, and the offender was deemed to have good prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the offender.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate weight to give to the evidence of remorse and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to consider these factors in light of the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. Additionally, the court needed to balance the sentencing principles of proportionality and individualisation, taking into account the offender's age, lack of prior criminal history, and the absence of any mitigating factors such as mental illness.

The court acknowledged the severity of the offence, noting that the offender had deliberately taken the life of another person. However, the court also recognised the evidence of remorse and the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The court further found that the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and the absence of any mitigating factors such as mental illness should be taken into account. Ultimately, the court decided that an appropriate sentence would be one that balanced the need for deterrence and protection of the community with the offender's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court also noted that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and evidence of remorse were significant factors in determining the appropriate length of the non-parole period. The exact term of imprisonment and the length of the non-parole period were to be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing outlined above.

Orders