R v Perera - [2024] NZHC 3779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 3779

THE KING

v

JANIK SHAYAN JEROME PERERA

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Counsel:

M Story for Crown

O Cross for Defendant

Sentencing:

10 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1] Janik Perera appears for sentencing today, having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of receiving (over $1,000).1

[2] Mr Perera is aged 32 and has no previous convictions. He applies for a discharge without conviction under ss 106 and 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 on the basis that the consequences of a conviction for him, to his employment and to his immigration status, are out of all proportion to the gravity of his offending.

[3] The Crown opposes a discharge, arguing that the disproportionality test in s 107 is not met. The Crown says Mr Perera should be convicted and sentenced to community detention and community work for his role in the offending.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v PERERA (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 3779 [10 December 2024]

The offending

[4] Mr Perera’s offending was detected as a result of a Police operation in 2022 that targeted a very large-scale receiving operation in the Wellington area. This criminal enterprise was run by Mr Soon. Mr Soon was Mr Perera’s landlord. Last month Mr Soon was sentenced to three years and 10 months’ imprisonment for his leading role.2

[5] Police obtained Mr Soon’s telecommunications information and conducted surveillance on him. The operation ended after multiple search warrants were executed at properties Mr Soon and his wife owned and at storage units at different locations. Six defendants were charged.

[6] Mr Soon would be contacted by people offering him stolen goods. He would also give people lists of goods that he wanted, so those items might be stolen or shoplifted to order. The participants would sell illegally obtained property on Mr Soon’s behalf. Police recovered property to a value of just short of $3 million.

[7] Mr Perera and his partner lived at the house of Mr Soon and Mr Soon’s wife, Ms Eng, during this operation. Mr Perera’s involvement included renting two storage facilities in his own name. Storage facilities were needed because of the volume of stolen property that Mr Soon was receiving. The garage at Mr Soon’s address was also used for the storage of stolen property and a large quantity of stolen property was found there when the Police searched Mr Soon’s property.

[8] Mr Perera sold stolen property on behalf of Mr Soon on Facebook Marketplace. He was given items to be on-sold. Items were stored in his bedroom. Mr Perera used his own Facebook account to sell four nail guns, one tool set, one gaming keyboard, four sets of headphones, and a gaming console. The retail price of these items is said to be $10,155.

[9] When Police searched Mr Soon’s address, they found three…

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 Perera

Details

AGLC: R v Perera [2024] NZHC 3779
Case: [2024] NZHC 3779
Decision Date: 10 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Janik Perera appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to receiving stolen goods valued over $1,000. The offending was part of a large-scale receiving operation led by Mr Soon, Perera's landlord, who was previously sentenced to three years and ten months in prison. Perera's role involved renting storage facilities, selling stolen property on Facebook Marketplace, and storing stolen goods in his bedroom. The total value of stolen property recovered from the operation was nearly $3 million. Perera applied for a discharge without conviction, arguing that the consequences of a conviction would be disproportionate to the gravity of his offence. The Crown opposed the discharge, advocating for a community sentence reflecting Perera's involvement in the crime.

The court considered the value of the stolen goods, the duration of the offending, and the commercial element involved. Perera's culpability was assessed as mid-range, though slightly less than another co-defendant, Mr Dutt, due to the lower value of property he sold and his lack of involvement in transporting the goods. The court set a starting point of 22 months' imprisonment, reduced to 14 months after accounting for Perera's guilty plea and lack of prior convictions. The court examined the potential consequences of a conviction on Perera's employment and immigration status. While acknowledging a real and appreciable risk to both, the court concluded these consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The court declined the application for a discharge without conviction and sentenced Perera to three months of community detention and 50 hours of community work.

The court's decision emphasised the need to hold Perera accountable for his role in the criminal operation while considering the personal mitigating factors. The sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offending, deter future crimes, and allow Perera to contribute positively to the community. The court's ruling balanced the need for punishment with the potential personal and societal impacts of a conviction on Perera.

Orders