R v Perry [2000] NSWCCA 375

R v Perry [2000] NSWCCA 375

The appeal failed because the sentencing judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the applicant was likely to re-offend, did not impose an impermissible preventative detention sentence, and had taken into account the applicant's mental illness, intellectual disability, custodial difficulties, conditional liberty, and guilty pleas. In light of the objective seriousness of the offences, the sentence was appropriate for protection of the community and the applicant's subjective circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Severity Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['maliciously Damaging Property With Intent to Cause Bodily Harm' 'maliciously Damaging Property' 'mental Illness and Intellectual Disability in Sentencing' 'protection of the Community' 'preventative Detention' 'quasi Custodial Bail Conditions' 'guilty Plea Discount']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['maliciously Damaging Property With Intent to Cause Bodily Harm' 'maliciously Damaging Property' 'mental Illness and Intellectual Disability in Sentencing' 'protection of the Community' 'preventative Detention' 'quasi Custodial Bail Conditions' 'guilty Plea Discount']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Severity Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by placing excessive emphasis on protection of the community.' 'Whether a finding that the applicant was likely to re-offend was open and had to be made beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the sentence involved impermissible preventative detention contrary to Veen v The Queen (No 2)(1998) 164 CLR 465.' "Whether sufficient regard was given to the applicant's subjective circumstances, including intellectual disability and psychiatric problems." 'Whether sufficient regard was given to the conditions under which the applicant would serve the sentence.' 'Whether the applicant should have received credit for restrictive or supervised accommodation while on conditional liberty.' "Whether sufficient weight was given to the applicant's pleas of guilty."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the sentencing judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the applicant was likely to re-offend, did not impose an impermissible preventative detention sentence, and had taken into account the applicant's mental illness, intellectual disability, custodial difficulties, conditional liberty, and guilty pleas. In light of the objective seriousness of the offences, the sentence was appropriate for protection of the community and the applicant's subjective circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']