R v Peri

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.