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.
Parties
David Patrick Suturino Perez
Appellant
Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the seriousness of the appellant's involvement in the offence
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment