R v Perrim - [2016] NSWDC 426

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PERRIM [2016] NSWDC 426
Hearing dates: 11/02/2016
Date of orders: 01 July 2016
Decision date: 01 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S NorrishQC
Decision:
First offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months.
Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 2 years.
Second offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.
Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 10 years
.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, drive furiously causing actual bodily harm, drive in a manner dangerous causing death, young offender not a “young person”.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610
R v Jurisic [1998] 45 NSWLR 209
R v RCW (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Veen (No 2) (1988) 165 CLR 465
R v Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252
SBF v The Queen (2009) 198 A Crim R 219
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Adam Mark Perrim - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Kerr – Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Barron - Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Barron Law - Offender

File Number(s): 2015/145211

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Adam Mark Perrim, appears today for sentence in relation to two offences to which he pleaded guilty at the Local Court and was committed for sentence to the Wagga sittings of the District Court of New South Wales.
The matter commenced before me in February. However, at a particular point when counsel for the prisoner was about to embark on submissions and the family of the deceased were in court, although I might not have been able to sentence that very day, I raised the issue of there being a need for further evidence in the nature of some form of report from Community Corrections. I have no psychological report in relation to the prisoner and there had not been ordered a presentence report. Probably because the matter had been committed for sentence from the Local Court on 6 January 2016 and came before me in mid February. So, in good faith, I adjourned the matter to enable a presentence report to be prepared. That presentence report now tendered could be said to reflect something of the attitude of the prisoner which is reflected in the Crown’s submissions. I am really no better placed now than perhaps I was in February. But unfortunately, or fortunately, I was not able to see into the future.
The crimes that the prisoner pleaded guilty to were as follows: firstly, that he at Wallendbeen in the State of New South Wales, did drive a motor vehicle, to writ, motor vehicle Holden Commodore registered number BZ56KA, when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Ricki Lee Atkinson, and at the time of…

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 Perrim

Details

AGLC: R v Perrim [2016] NSWDC 426
Case: [2016] NSWDC 426
Decision Date: 01 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Perrim, was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court of Queensland for two separate offences of dangerous driving causing serious harm. The first offence involved driving in a manner dangerous to the public causing actual bodily harm. The second offence involved driving in a manner dangerous to the public causing death. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland, which was asked to review the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate. In particular, the court was asked to consider whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The court was also asked to consider whether the trial court had given adequate consideration to the appellant’s age and the fact that he was not classified as a "young person" under the Young Offenders Act.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the appellant had a history of driving offences and had caused serious harm to others on two separate occasions. The court also noted that the appellant was an adult at the time of the offences and was not classified as a "young person" under the Young Offenders Act. The court found that the trial court had not given adequate consideration to these factors when imposing sentence. The court therefore varied the sentence, imposing a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months for the second offence, and a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months with a 2-year disqualification from holding a driver’s licence for the first offence.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months for the first offence, and to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months for the second offence. The court also ordered that the appellant be disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period of 2 years for the first offence and 10 years for the second offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

First offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months.

Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 2 years.

Second offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.

Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 10 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 PERRIM [2016] NSWDC 426
Hearing dates:	11/02/2016
Date of orders:	01 July 2016
Decision date:	01 July 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S NorrishQC
Decision:	First offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 year 6 months. Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 2 years. Second offence: Convicted, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months. Disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for a period 10 years .
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, drive furiously causing actual bodily harm, drive in a manner dangerous causing death, young offender not a “young person”.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59 Pearce v R [1998] 194 CLR 610 R v Jurisic [1998] 45 NSWLR 209 R v RCW (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Veen (No 2) (1988) 165 CLR 465 R v Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252 SBF v The Queen (2009) 198 A Crim R 219
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Adam Mark Perrim - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Kerr – Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Barron - Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Barron Law - Offender
File Number(s):	2015/145211