Regina v Perrin - [2001] NSWCCA 422

CITATION: Regina v Perrin [2001] NSWCCA 422

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60121/01

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 12 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 October 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v David John Perrin

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Howie J at 18

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0292

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sorby DCJ

COUNSEL : E,A. Wilkins (Crown)
C.B. Craigie (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - ARMED ROBBERY - YOUNG OFFENDER - THE OFFENCES WITHIN 24 HOURS - CONFESSION AT POLICE STATION A FEW DAYS LATER - DISCOUNT FOR GUILTY PLEA AND CONTRITION - DECISION ON PARTICULAR FACTS - NO SPECIAL POINT OF PRINCIPLE

DECISION: APPEAL ALLOWED; RESENTENCED

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60121/01

GROVE J

HOWIE J

Friday 12 October 2001

REGINA v DAVID JOHN PERRIN

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon the applicant by Sorby DCJ in the Parramatta District Court. The applicant had appeared in that Court charged with two offences of armed robbery and his Honour sentenced him on the first count to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years, and on the second count, to imprisonment for four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and six months. Both sentences were ordered to commence upon the same date and therefore were to the extent of the first imposition, concurrent.

2 This application, thanks to the co-operation of counsel, can be dealt with relatively expeditiously.

3 The facts of the matter are that the applicant was then a nineteen-year-old young man who had apparently been viewing videos, in the course of which he developed an idea of committing a robbery. I remain mystified as to how that thought sprang into his mind. However, in the afternoon of Wednesday, 20 September 2000, he left his premises, riding his brother's bicycle. He was wearing a black coloured back pack and had taken with him a kitchen knife.

4 I do not need to specify all of the events which occurred, but in short, he went to a Blockbuster video store where he exposed the handle of the knife, as a result of which staff opened the tills and gave him approximately $330.

5 At about 6 am the following morning, again riding his brother's bicycle, there was almost a repeat of what had occurred on the previous afternoon, although on this occasion the target was a McDonalds hamburger store.

6 The applicant sought to flee the scene of this crime, but was chased by members of the staff, including one in a motor car. As a result of a collision, his brother's bicycle was damaged and he was forced to continue his flight on foot. Coincidentally, he encountered a police officer, but was able to persuade this police officer he was visiting a friend and he was on this occasion not arrested.

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 Regina v Perrin

Details

AGLC: Regina v Perrin [2001] NSWCCA 422
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 422
Decision Date: 12 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Perrin, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery, with the offences occurring within a 24-hour period. Perrin confessed to the crimes at the police station a few days after their commission. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account factors such as the defendant's age, the short time frame of the offences, the defendant's guilty plea, and their expressions of contrition. The primary legal issue was the extent to which these factors should mitigate the severity of the sentence, and whether any particular discount should be applied.

The court considered the defendant's age, recognising that Perrin was a young offender. The rapid succession of the offences, occurring within a 24-hour period, was also a significant factor. The court weighed the defendant's decision to confess at the police station, which demonstrated a level of remorse and cooperation. Additionally, the defendant's guilty plea and expressions of contrition were noted as mitigating factors. The court emphasised that sentencing decisions in such cases often require a detailed analysis of the specific circumstances to ensure justice is served appropriately. The court concluded that these factors warranted a discount in the sentence, reflecting the defendant's culpability and remorse.

After evaluating the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined that a sentence reflecting the particular facts of the case was warranted. The court imposed a sentence that took into account the defendant's age, the short time frame of the offences, the guilty plea, and the contrition shown. The court found that the particular circumstances did not warrant a special point of principle but justified a sentence that recognised the defendant's remorse and cooperation. The final orders of the court reflected this balanced approach, ensuring that the sentence was both fair and proportionate to the nature of the offences.

Orders