Perez v R [2012] NSWCCA 167

Perez v R [2012] NSWCCA 167

The sentencing judge did not err in finding both offenders were involved in planning and execution of the robbery, including the use of actual violence and a weapon by both; therefore, identical sentences were appropriate as there was no demonstrated disparity in culpability or seriousness warranting different treatment.

Parties
Appellant: David Patrick Suturino Perez; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Robbery in Company, Parity in Sentencing, Role and Seriousness of Involvement, Sentencing Guideline Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Patrick Suturino Perez

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the appellant's involvement in the offence
  2. 2 Whether there was relevant error in not distinguishing between appellant and co-offender for purposes of parity in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in finding both offenders were involved in planning and execution of the robbery, including the use of actual violence and a weapon by both; therefore, identical sentences were appropriate as there was no demonstrated disparity in culpability or seriousness warranting different treatment.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.