R v Perkins and Gooley - [2005] QCA 377

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Perkins & Gooley [2005] QCA 377

PARTIES:

R
v
PERKINS, Robert James
(applicant)

R
v
GOOLEY, Shaun William
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 187 of 2005
CA No 204 of 2005
DC No 305 of 2005
DC No 394 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. In CA No 187 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
2. In CA No 204 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicants convicted after pleas of guilty to armed robbery in company together with a third offender - convenience store robbery - applicant Perkins armed with a knife directed complainant to place money in a bag and directed customers to stay back - applicant Gooley took money from till - third offender acted as lookout - $300 in money and cigarettes stolen - applicant Perkins sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and three years probation - applicant Gooley sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three years - third offender sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicant Perkins aged 20 at time of offence - co-operation with police - early plea of guilty - intelligence within mentally deficient range - indications of drug and alcohol abuse - considered an impressionable and emotionally vulnerable young man who represents a medium risk of re-offending given present lifestyle in psychological report - whether unjustifiable disparity between sentence imposed on applicant Perkins and co-offenders - whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicant Gooley aged 20 at time of offence - co-operation with police - implicated co‑offenders in record of interview - early plea of guilty - on prescribed medication for schizophrenia and attending Beenleigh Mental Health Centre for treatment for his schizophrenia and depression at time of offence - regulated patient under Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) - more extensive criminal history than co‑offenders - whether unjustifiable disparity between sentence imposed on applicant Gooley and co-offenders - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Perkins and Gooley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QCA 377
Decision Date: 7 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Perkins and Gooley, appealed against their sentences following convictions for armed robbery. Both pleaded guilty to their involvement in an armed robbery at a convenience store. Perkins was armed with a knife and directed the complainant and customers while Gooley took money from the till. The third offender acted as a lookout during the robbery, which resulted in the theft of $300 in money and cigarettes. Perkins was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and three years probation, while Gooley received a three-year suspended sentence after serving 12 months, with an operational period of three years. The third offender was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The applicants argued that the sentences imposed upon them were unjustifiable disparities compared to their co-offenders and manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were unjustifiable disparities compared to their co-offenders and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The applicants submitted that they had cooperated with the police, entered early guilty pleas, and had mitigating factors such as Perkins' low intelligence, drug and alcohol abuse, and Gooley's schizophrenia and depression. The applicants also argued that they were impressionable and emotionally vulnerable young men with a medium risk of re-offending. The Crown, however, maintained that the sentences were appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence and the need to deter future crimes.

In assessing the applicants' submissions, the court considered various factors, including the circumstances of the offence, the applicants' criminal histories, their cooperation with the police, and their early guilty pleas. The court also took into account the applicants' mitigating factors, such as Perkins' low intelligence and drug and alcohol abuse, and Gooley's schizophrenia and depression. However, the court found that the sentences imposed on the applicants were not unjustifiable disparities compared to their co-offenders and were not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter future crimes. The court also noted that the applicants' mitigating factors were already considered during the sentencing process. Consequently, the applicants' applications for leave to appeal against their sentences were refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In CA No 187 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

2. In CA No 204 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.

CITATION:	R v Perkins & Gooley [2005] QCA 377
PARTIES:	R v PERKINS, Robert James (applicant) R v GOOLEY, Shaun William (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 187 of 2005 CA No 204 of 2005 DC No 305 of 2005 DC No 394 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 September 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. In CA No 187 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused 2. In CA No 204 of 2005: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicants convicted after pleas of guilty to armed robbery in company together with a third offender - convenience store robbery - applicant Perkins armed with a knife directed complainant to place money in a bag and directed customers to stay back - applicant Gooley took money from till - third offender acted as lookout - $300 in money and cigarettes stolen - applicant Perkins sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and three years probation - applicant Gooley sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three years - third offender sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicant Perkins aged 20 at time of offence - co-operation with police - early plea of guilty - intelligence within mentally deficient range - indications of drug and alcohol abuse - considered an impressionable and emotionally vulnerable young man who represents a medium risk of re-offending given present lifestyle in psychological report - whether unjustifiable disparity between sentence imposed on applicant Perkins and co-offenders - whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - applicant Gooley aged 20 at time of offence - co-operation with police - implicated co‑offenders in record of interview - early plea of guilty - on prescribed medication for schizophrenia and attending Beenleigh Mental Health Centre for treatment for his schizophrenia and depression at time of offence - regulated patient under Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) - more extensive criminal history than co‑offenders - whether unjustifiable disparity between sentence imposed on applicant Gooley and co-offenders - whether sentence manifestly excessive Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606