R v Perkins - [2020] NSWDC 803

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Perkins [2020] NSWDC 803
Hearing dates: 24 February 2020; 17 August 2020
Date of orders: 17 August 2020
Decision date: 17 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: W Hunt DCJ
Decision:
The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 3 years

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated sexual intercourse with a child of 10 years of age – Complainant under the authority of offender at time of offending – Breach of trust – Genuine remorse – Extra curial punishment

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Cases Cited:
Henry v R [2009] NSWCCA 69
R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60
R v Rich [2000] NSWCCA 448

Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Aaron Perkins
Representation: Counsel:
J Peluso - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown

File Number(s): 2019/00143737
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant or of any material which may tend to identify the complainant.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On some date between September and November 2011, the offender, Aaron Perkins, committed an act of aggravated sexual intercourse on IM who was then aged ten. That offence is laid pursuant to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment and a standard non‑parole period of nine years. I will have regard to those legislative guideposts or benchmarks in the way contemplated by the authorities.
The circumstance of aggravation was that IM was under the authority of the offender at the relevant time and for that purpose even though there was a significant breach of trust involved in the offending because Mr Perkins was caring for IM at the time, who was then a friend of his daughter’s, I will not engage in double‑counting by having regard to that further, given that it is a circumstance averred on the indictment.
These are ex tempore reasons for sentence delivered on the day that I heard further submissions and considered further evidence from the parties and any inelegance of expression should be forgiven for that reason.
The matter has a slightly complicated procedural history that has some relevance. The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed to this Court for sentence. It is common ground between the parties that he is to be afforded a utilitarian discount of 25%. The utilitarian discount in this case, apart from a saving of court time, the most significant part of that to the early plea of guilty, was that the victim of the proceedings did not need to give evidence nor have the prospect of possibly giving evidence hanging over her head before the offence was resolved in this Court.
Further, the plea of guilty has some work to do in relation to Mr Perkins’ remorse which is a topic to which I will return to in due course. The matter came for sentence before me on…

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 [2020] NSWDC 803
Case: [2020] NSWDC 803
Decision Date: 17 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Perkins involved the respondent being charged with aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10. The complainant was in the care and authority of the respondent at the time of the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was determining an appropriate sentence that took into account the aggravating factors of the crime, as well as any mitigating circumstances. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the crime, which involved a breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, against the offender's genuine remorse and extra-curial punishment already served.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision. Firstly, it noted the gravity of the offence, which involved a significant breach of trust and the abuse of a position of authority. The court acknowledged the complainant's young age, which compounded the severity of the crime. However, it also recognised the respondent's genuine remorse, as evidenced by his acceptance of responsibility and participation in programs designed to address his offending behaviour. The court further considered the extra-curial punishment the respondent had already served, which it deemed appropriate and a factor in the sentencing decision.

After weighing all the factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and to provide deterrence and protection to the community. It sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for a period of 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The court believed this sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and the opportunity for rehabilitation, while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 3 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Perkins [2020] NSWDC 803
Hearing dates:	24 February 2020; 17 August 2020
Date of orders:	17 August 2020
Decision date:	17 August 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	W Hunt DCJ
Decision:	The offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 3 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated sexual intercourse with a child of 10 years of age – Complainant under the authority of offender at time of offending – Breach of trust – Genuine remorse – Extra curial punishment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
Cases Cited:	Henry v R [2009] NSWCCA 69 R v BJW [2000] NSWCCA 60 R v Rich [2000] NSWCCA 448
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Aaron Perkins
Representation:	Counsel: J Peluso - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
File Number(s):	2019/00143737
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the complainant or of any material which may tend to identify the complainant.