Camblin v The Queen

The Supreme Court of Victoria's Court of Appeal heard an application from Craig Matthew Camblin for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed by Judge Gullaci in the County Court on 13 August 2012. Camblin pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. The maximum penalty for armed robbery is 25 years' imprisonment. Camblin sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the sentence did not reflect the judge's expressed intention with respect to the non-parole period and that both the sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The court found that the first proposed ground was not reasonably arguable, as the judge had clearly considered the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and the need for specific deterrence and community protection. The court also found that the second proposed ground was not arguable, as the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that it would be a rare case in which the Court would be persuaded that what a judge did with respect to a non-parole period simply did not give effect to that judge's stated intention. Furthermore, the ground of manifest excess is a difficult one to make good, and the court would only interfere on this ground where the sentencing judge has gone obviously or badly wrong.

In conclusion, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all the matters properly advanced on the applicant's behalf and reached conclusions which were palpably open to him on the material. The law of Victoria commits the decision on the balance between prospects of rehabilitation and the need for specific deterrence and community protection to sentencing judges, not to the Court of Appeal.