R v Perkins No. Sccrm-03-271

R v PERKINS
[2004] SASC 53
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Perry and Mullighan JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would refuse leave to appeal. These were offences of a serious character. In my opinion the offences themselves are serious instances of the offences in question.
In support of that I refer to the circumstances of the offending and in particular to the planning that was involved. There was nothing impulsive about these offences. They involved a serious abuse of trust of the parents, of the school at which Mr Perkins assisted as a volunteer, and of the community as a whole. This is offending of a kind that has a corrosive effect on community confidence in institutions that care for children. It is offending also, that by arousing anxiety and suspicion about volunteers, must make it more difficult to attract volunteers for this kind of work. It is offending which, apart from its direct impact on the unfortunate victims and their families, has a real impact on the community as well.
The involvement of other men is an aggravating circumstance. Mr Perkins must have realised that one of them at least was either a paedophile or had paedophile tendencies.
The fact that the offending involved three different children is also a relevant matter and adds to the seriousness.
The sentence is substantial but in my opinion it is well within the range for this offending. In my opinion it is not reasonably arguable that the sentence is excessive. That is why I would refuse leave to appeal.
In saying that I allow for the fact that Mr Perkins is getting on in years and his health is not good, but in my opinion his health can be adequately attended to in the prison system. There was material before the Judge to that effect and in any event, there is a limit to the extent to which matters like that can reduce what is an appropriate sentence.
In my opinion there is no error of principle or reproach by the sentencing Judge. For those reasons in brief I would refuse leave to appeal.
PERRY J: In my opinion the offending in this case was in the worst possible category and involved a gross abuse of trust. Aggravating circumstances are that several children were involved, that their vulnerability was enhanced by the reason of their disability. A further aggravating circumstance was that they were induced to perform indecent acts including bondage not only in the presence of the applicant, but in the presence of other men.
While it is true that the applicant is now aged 66, almost 67 years and in poor health, there is virtually nothing that could be said by way of mitigation.
The applicant has a history of prior convictions including two offences of carnal knowledge.
In my opinion, while severe, the penalty imposed was not arguably excessive
I would refuse the application.
MULLIGHAN J: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by the other members of the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal in South Australia heard an application from the respondent, Perkins, against the decision of a lower court in which he was convicted of serious offences against children. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, which Perkins contended was excessive. The Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate given the nature and gravity of the crimes, and whether there were any errors in principle or law that would warrant an appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive considering the nature of the crimes and the aggravating circumstances. The Court had to weigh the gravity of the offences, which involved a gross abuse of trust, the planning and premeditation involved, the vulnerability of the victims, and the presence of other men during the commission of the crimes. Additionally, the Court considered the age and health of Perkins as mitigating factors.

The Court, in its judgement, found that the offences were of a serious character and involved a significant breach of trust, affecting not only the victims but also the community's confidence in institutions that care for children. The Court highlighted the planning involved and the fact that the offences were committed in the presence of other men, which aggravated the seriousness of the crimes. Despite Perkins's age and health issues, the Court concluded that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the sentence. The Court was satisfied that the sentence was appropriate and not excessive, and therefore refused the application for leave to appeal.

In summary, the Court of Criminal Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal, finding that the sentence imposed was justified given the gravity of the offences and the absence of significant mitigating factors.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established