Legal Research
Cases
Cameron v R

Cameron v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 229 27 September 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Cameron v R [2017] NSWCCA 229
Hearing dates: 14 August 2017
Decision date: 27 September 2017
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Button J at [16];
Hamill J at [35]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – cultivation of large commercial quantity of cannabis – where murder planned premeditated and motivated to avoid detection of drug offence – assistance to authorities – disclosure of location of victim’s corpse – whether discount for assistance inadequate – parity of sentencing – concept of material difference – whether differences in cases justified differences in sentences imposed – co-offender young with no prior offences and medical condition – applicant middle aged man with substantial history of drug cultivation – where sentencing judge partially accumulated sentences in applicant’s case – where sentence at top of range but not manifestly excessive – whether combination of justifiable differences might give rise to total sentence offending parity principle – life expectancy tables – whether relevant to sentencing – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed by majority
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 23, 44, 61
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26
Cases Cited: Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164
Des Rosiers v R [2006] NSWCCA 16; (2006) 159 A Crim R 549
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
England v R; Phanith v R [2009] NSWCCA 274
Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390
Green & Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Cameron, Forward and Wilkinson [2016] NSWSC 1342
R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241; [2002] NSWCCA 60
R v Qaumi, Qaumi and Qaumi (Sentence) [2017] NSWSC 774
Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461; [1989] HCA 53
Ta’ala v R [2008] NSWCCA 132
Tan v R [2014] NSWCCA 96
Tuivaga v R [2015] NSWCCA 145
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Donald John Cameron (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Stratton SC with Ms M Curry (Applicant)
Ms M Cinque SC (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
Proctor and Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/00220843; 2015/00075641
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 September 2016

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2014/00220843; 2015/00075641

Judgment

BASTEN JA: In this application for leave to appeal against two…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cameron v R

Details

AGLC: Cameron v R [2017] NSWCCA 229
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 229
Decision Date: 27 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence by a man convicted of murder in the context of a drug trafficking operation. The appeal centred on the sentencing imposed by the trial judge, specifically whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the differences in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offender were justified. The co-offender had received a lesser sentence despite also being involved in the murder, which was committed to avoid detection of the drug offence. The appellant, who had a significant history of drug cultivation, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years, whereas the co-offender, who had no prior offences and a medical condition, received a sentence of 15 years with a non-parole period of 11 years.

The legal issues before the court were whether the differences in the sentences were justified by a material difference in the respective culpability of the offenders and whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing, which requires that similar crimes be punished similarly, and whether the combination of justifiable differences in the appellant’s and the co-offender’s cases might give rise to a total sentence that offends the parity principle. The appellant argued that the differences in their sentences were not justified, while the respondent maintained that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the differences in their respective culpability and circumstances.

The majority of the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The court noted that the appellant had a substantial history of drug cultivation and that the murder was premeditated and motivated by the desire to avoid detection of the drug offence. The court also found that the differences in the sentences were justified by the material differences in the respective culpability of the offenders, including the appellant’s substantial history of drug cultivation and the co-offender’s lack of prior offences and medical condition. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, noting that it was at the top of the range but not manifestly excessive. The majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was appropriate and did not offend the principle of parity in sentencing.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders