R v Perrin

The appellant, represented by senior counsel, was convicted of six counts of aggravated forgery and three counts of aggravated fraud. He sought to appeal against his convictions and sentence. In relation to the convictions, the appellant contended that the trial judge wrongly decided that the exculpatory provision in s 22(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld), an honest claim of right, would not be left for the jury to consider. The appellant submitted that by failing to leave s 22(2) to the jury, a miscarriage of justice was caused. In relation to the sentence, the appellant contended that the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to account for his cooperation in the administration of justice. The appellant submitted that the sentence as a whole was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal issues, including whether the trial judge was correct to conclude that a direction on s 22(2) was not necessary, and whether the sentence as a whole was manifestly excessive. The court found that the appeal against the convictions should be dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be allowed. The court found that the trial judge was correct to conclude that a direction on s 22(2) was not necessary, as the circumstances did not warrant the provision being left to the jury. The court also found that the sentence as a whole was not manifestly excessive, but that the order as to parole eligibility was set aside, and an alternative date was imposed. The sentences imposed on 27 January 2017 were affirmed otherwise.