R v Perrem - [2000] QCA 339

[2000] QCA 339

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 119 of 2000

THE QUEEN

STEVEN MATTHEW PERREM

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/08/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence imposed on him in the District Court when he pleaded guilty to offences he had committed in 1998 and 1999. It is argued that the sentences imposed were excessive. He is a young man with a limited criminal history and a problem of drug addiction which requires to be resolved.

It is also contended that the learned sentencing Judge paid insufficient attention to other mitigating factors, especially co-operation with the police and the issue of the applicant's poor upbringing.

He was born on 24 April 1978 and was aged 20 and 21 when the various offences were committed. There were two indictments. The offences in the first indictment were nine of breaking, entering and stealing, six of entering premises with intent, four of unlawful use, two of entering premises and stealing and one of burglary. On the further indictment there were two charges of burglary and one of attempted fraud. The Judge also imposed sentences for 90 other offences, included in a form lodged under section 189(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. These were five stealing offences, one of fraud, two of unlawful use of motor vehicle, one of possessing housebreaking implements and 81 of entering premises with intent to steal. There were thus 115 offences altogether committed over a period of about 17 months, the total value of the property damaged or stolen and unrecovered being about $68,000; that is the amount of compensation which would have had to be paid.

The Judge imposed a head sentence of six years for certain of the offences, three years for others and one year for yet another. And his Honour recommended that the applicant be considered for parole after having served two years and three months.

The applicant's criminal history was relatively minor. It included offences of dishonesty dealt with in Court in October 1996, January 1997 and June 1998. These attracted sentences of probation, community service and fine. There were also a number of lesser offences. In October 1999, after these offences were committed, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for having breached the Bail Act.

In respect of various of the offences here in question the applicant was arrested on five occasions, and those arrests occurred between June 1998 and September 1999. Most of these offences were committed whilst the applicant was on bail and most were committed in shops. For example, the applicant would distract the shop assistants by placing an order and then pressing the "No Sale" button on the till to expose the cash. There were also some dwelling houses broken into.

On some occasions the offences resulted in a confrontation and chasing. Mrs Clare, for the respondent, has emphasised that on other occasions substantial damage was caused to buildings, for example, by cutting holes (to facilitate…

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 Perrem

Details

AGLC: R v Perrem [2000] QCA 339
Case: [2000] QCA 339
Decision Date: 18/08/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Perrem involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on Steven Matthew Perrem, who pleaded guilty to a series of offences committed in 1998 and 1999. Perrem argued that the sentences imposed by the District Court were excessive, taking into account his age, limited criminal history, and drug addiction. He also claimed that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider other mitigating factors, such as his cooperation with the police and his troubled upbringing. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was within the appropriate range and if it was excessive.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed on Perrem was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors presented. The Court of Appeal examined previous cases with similar circumstances to determine whether the sentence imposed on Perrem was within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on Perrem was within the appropriate range, although it may have been at the higher end. The Court considered that a substantial penalty was necessary due to the nature and extent of the offences committed by Perrem. While the Court acknowledged that a shorter parole eligibility period may have been more appropriate, it ultimately decided that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on Perrem was not manifestly excessive and granted the application for leave to appeal. The Court varied the sentence by reducing the recommended parole consideration period from two years and three months to two years.

Orders