R v Purtell - [2001] NSWCCA 21

Reported Decision:
120 A Crim R 317

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v PURTELL, Garry Michael [2001] NSWCCA 21 revised - 20/03/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 606341/00

HEARING DATE(S): 30 January 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 January 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v Garry Michael PURTELL

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hulme J at 18; Bell J at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/71/0116

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : E A Wilkins - Crown
B H Hughes - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Pogson Cronin - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: PERVERSION OF COURSE OF JUSTICE - provided forged testimonial when being sentenced for assault - guilty plea - respondent discharged without proceeding to conviction on condition he enter into good behaviour bond - Crown appeal - misapprehended significance of forged letter to the sentencing - gave undue significance to fact perversion as to sentence rather than conviction - important to protect integrity of criminal justice system - sentence manifestly inadequate - Crown appeal and Crown had not sought and did not seek custodial sentence - respondent convicted and ordered to enter into good behaviour bond.

CASES CITED:
R v Hakim, CCA, 5 September 1996, unreported
R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 387

DECISION: Appeal allowed; order discharging respondent on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond set aside; in lieu thereof the respondent convicted and order made that he enter into a good behaviour bond.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CA 606341/00

DC 98/71/0116

GILES JA
HULME J
BELL J

Tuesday 30 January 2001

REGINA v GARRY MICHAEL PURTELL

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the sentence pronounced by Judge Gibson in the District Court at Albury on 24 July 2000. The respondent had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900. Exercising the power in s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, his Honour did not proceed to conviction and made an order discharging the respondent on condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for two years and the further condition that he make no contact with Glenys Purtell either directly or indirectly. The occasion for that latter condition will become apparent.

2 The respondent married Glenys Purtell in 1976. They separated in 1991. The respondent thereafter lived in a relationship with Pauline Keirghran and then in a relationship with Jennifer Scott. In January 1997 the respondent was charged with assault on Pauline Keirghran and malicious damage to her property. He defended the charges in the Local Court at Albury, but in October 1997 was found guilty.

3 In relation to sentence the respondent’s legal representative then handed up to the learned magistrate three letters of reference. One…

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 Purtell

Details

AGLC: R v Purtell [2001] NSWCCA 21
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 21
Decision Date: 30 January 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Purtell involved the respondent who had provided a forged testimonial during his sentencing for assault. The appeal was lodged by the Crown, arguing that the primary judge had misapprehended the significance of the forged letter to the sentencing process. The primary judge had focused unduly on the fact that the perversion related to the sentence rather than the conviction, which was considered a critical error given the need to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. The Crown contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that it had not sought, nor did it seek, a custodial sentence.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, who had committed the offence of perverting the course of justice by providing a forged testimonial. The Crown argued that the primary judge had misapplied the principles of sentencing and had not adequately considered the need to deter the respondent and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the primary judge had failed to properly consider the seriousness of the offence.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the primary judge had erred in the principles applied to sentencing and had not adequately considered the need to deter the respondent and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was allowed. The respondent was convicted and ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system and the need for appropriate sentences to be imposed on those who engage in conduct that undermines the administration of justice.

Orders