Cameron v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 224

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cameron v R [2013] NSWCCA 224
Hearing dates: 25 September 2013
Decision date: 09 October 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Bellew J at [38]
Barr AJ at [39]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - break enter and commit serious indictable offence - offender broke into brother's home and lit fire - house severely damaged and family possessions destroyed - offender suffering from depression at time - whether specific deterrence relevant - whether a finding of "a considerable element of planning" was open to sentencing judge - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Maxwell Cameron - Applicant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
Mr D O'Neil - Applicant
Ms S Herbert - Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
SE O'Connor - Legal Aid NSW - applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2012/62811
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-11-27 00:00:00

Before:

Payne DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/62811

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

On 23 June 2012 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence (destroy property by fire), contrary to s112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, committed on 25 February 2012. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 14 years.

On 27 November 2012 the applicant was sentenced by Payne DCJ to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 25 February 2012 and expiring 24 February 2015, with a balance of term of 1 year and 10 months, expiring 24 December 2016.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from that sentence as follows:

Ground 1: Her Honour failed to reduce or eliminate the significance of specific deterrence due to the applicant's depression.

Ground 2: Her Honour's finding that there was "a considerable element of planning" was not open to her, and undermined her Honour's finding as to the "disinhibiting effect" of alcohol upon the applicant.

Factual Background

The applicant was born in 1958. His family owned several farming properties in the Tamworth area. The properties were run as a partnership until 1984 when the applicant left after receiving a large amount of money.

The applicant moved interstate before returning to Tamworth in about 1997 where he was employed by the family partnership as a farmhand. After the death of the applicant's father, the properties were administered by the applicant's brother, David, and his wife.

Since about 2005 the applicant increased the amount of alcohol which he was drinking. By early 2012, he had not been working properly and was often intoxicated or badly hung over when at work. As a result, David terminated his employment as a farmhand on 4 January. Since that time, the applicant continued to reside on the family properties and was provided with food etc by the partnership. As the applicant did not have a driver's licence, he would be…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cameron v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 224
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 224
Decision Date: 09 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cameron, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for breaking into his brother's home and committing arson, causing severe damage and destruction of property. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in considering specific deterrence in the sentencing process, given the appellant's state of depression at the time of the offence. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the appellant's actions involved a considerable element of planning.

The court determined that the sentencing judge did not err in considering specific deterrence as a relevant factor. The appellant's mental health condition was acknowledged, but it was held that this did not preclude the judge from considering specific deterrence. The court further held that the finding of a considerable element of planning was open to the sentencing judge based on the evidence presented, including the deliberate actions taken by the appellant to commit the crime. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised that the sentencing judge's assessment of the circumstances and the need for deterrence was within their discretion. The court also confirmed that the evidence supported the finding of premeditation, reinforcing the original sentence imposed. The final orders confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the maintenance of the original sentence.

Orders