R v Peri - [2015] NZHC 3221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-090-3023 [2015] NZHC 3221

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN KURT PERI

Hearing: 15 December 2015

Counsel:

N Williams &T McGuigan for the Crown
A M Rice for Mr Peri

Sentence:

15 December 2015

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:
Andrew Rice, Barrister, Auckland

R v PERI [2015] NZHC 3221 [15 December 2015]

[1] Steven Peri, you appear for sentence on one charge of aggravated robbery. The offending occurred just after 9 am on 2 June 2015. You went into a BNZ bank, approached the customer service counter and handed a note to the staff member. The note read:

I HAVE A GUN THAT I WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE I want all the notes from out of the drawer. Do not draw attention or notify anyone until after I’ve left. I don’t want to hurt anyone BUT I WILL if you do not follow the instructions. Remain calm and everything will be alright.

[2] You started pulling a small black hand gun from your left pocket with your finger on the trigger. You stated “I wouldn’t hesitate to use it, give me the money”. The staff member went to the back to alert the manager.

[3] You then approached a second staff member. You said you needed money and had a gun. You then pulled the gun from your pocket and placed it on the counter, covering it from other people’s view. The second staff member told you to wait and went into the rear office. When she returned you again told her to give you the money and that you had a gun.

[4] The manager arrived and stated that there was a minute time delay on the cash drawers. After a minute the manager handed you $5,060 in $5, $10, $50, and
$100 notes. You took the cash and left the bank. You went to a nearby Salvation

Army Store where he had previously left a bag of clothes to change into.

[5] You reported that you committed the offending due to financial pressures. The offending occurred after you had lost your job and owed rent, but could not receive a benefit for 13 weeks, owing to the mandatory stand down period.

[6] You have convictions for three counts of non-aggravated robbery from 2011, a conviction for demand with intent to steal from 2007 and seven counts of non- aggravated robbery from 2007. You also have previous convictions for offending in Canada. In 1999 you were convicted for offences of forcible confinement, robbery with a firearm and robbery without a firearm. You was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. You were released from prison in 2007 and deported to New Zealand.

[7] You are on your second strike under the three strikes regime. You have already received a second stage warning on conviction for this offending.1

Crown Submissions

[8] The Crown acknowledges that the present case is finely balanced, but asks me to consider preventive detention. I have…

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 Peri

Details

AGLC: R v Peri [2015] NZHC 3221
Case: [2015] NZHC 3221
Decision Date: 15 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Steven Peri, was convicted of aggravated robbery. The defendant entered a bank, threatened the staff with a gun, and demanded money. The defendant had a prior history of robbery and had been deported from Canada to New Zealand in 2007. The defendant was on his second strike under the three strikes regime. The defendant’s offending was committed approximately seven months after his release from prison. The Crown argued that a lengthy finite sentence may be preferable and sought a starting point of six years imprisonment with a six to nine months uplift. The Crown submitted that the appropriate starting point was in the vicinity of six years imprisonment with a six to nine months uplift to acknowledge the need for specific deterrence, given the defendant’s previous offending. The defendant’s counsel submitted that preventive detention was not necessary and that a starting point of six years imprisonment was appropriate. The Court found that a starting point of six years imprisonment was appropriate, but that an uplift of six months was appropriate given the defendant’s previous convictions. The Court rejected the Crown’s submission for preventive detention, finding that the defendant’s risk of reoffending could be significantly mitigated if he successfully completed a high intensity rehabilitation programme during this period of imprisonment. The Court concluded that the requirements in s 87 of the Sentencing Act 2002 were not met, and that there were further rehabilitative options available to the defendant while serving a determinate sentence. The defendant was sentenced to four years 11 months imprisonment.

Orders