Paul Campbell v R

Paul Campbell, a 13-year-old, appealed against his conviction and sentence for serious sexual offences against younger relatives. The Supreme Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in several respects in assessing the appropriate sentence, including the objective criminality of the offences, the availability of non-custodial alternatives, and the breach of trust inherent in the crimes.

The court examined whether the primary judge correctly assessed the degree of criminality involved, considering the impulsive and opportunistic nature of the offences. It also scrutinised the judge's conclusion that there were no non-custodial alternatives suitable for the crimes. Additionally, the court considered the judge's determination that the offences involved a breach of trust, given the familial relationship between the offender and the victims. The appeal hinged on whether these assessments were flawed and if they warranted a different outcome.

The court found that the primary judge had indeed made errors in several respects. The judge's assessment of the objective criminality was flawed, as it did not adequately account for the impulsive and opportunistic nature of the offences. The court also determined that the judge erred in concluding that no non-custodial alternatives were available. Furthermore, the court found that the breach of trust was not adequately considered in the sentencing process. These errors led the court to conclude that the proceedings miscarried, and it ordered a re-sentencing hearing. The court did not specify whether the re-sentencing should involve a remission or a complete re-sentencing, leaving that decision to the re-sentencing judge.