R v Camilleri - [1999] VSC 184

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 1605 of 1998

THE QUEEN

LESLIE ALFRED CAMILLERI

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 APRIL 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 184

---

CATCHWORDS: Murder - Rape - Abduction - Evidence of co-offender - Drug use - Prior Convictions - Sentenced to life imprisonment - No minimum term fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Hicks and Mr. P. Kidd	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. S. Langslow and Mr. G. Mullaly	Stary George Myall

HIS HONOUR:

Leslie Alfred Camilleri, the jury empanelled upon your trial has, after hearing a considerable body of evidence and a period of due deliberation, found you guilty of the murder of a 14 year old girl named Lauren Margaret Barry and her 16 year old companion Nichole Emma Collins.

You have also admitted to 146 prior convictions arising out of nine court appearances before the courts between August 1988 and October 1997. In your favour, I observe that they do not relate to crimes of violence. Nevertheless, they are reflective of a lifestyle of dishonesty and continuing disregard of the rights of others. There is ample material to demonstrate that you clearly are a very violent person capable of outbursts of explosive temper. Not only has this aspect of your personality emerged from the evidence given in the trial, but it was commented upon in 1993 in a psychiatric report tendered by your counsel in the course of the plea presented on your behalf. That reads in part:

"His present troubles apparently stem from a pattern of theft and vandalism which have been his reaction to social ostracism, leading to frustration, which because of poor impulse control has ended in explosive outbursts of destructive behaviour."

The background to, and circumstances surrounding, the commission of the offences for which you must now be sentenced have been the subject of consideration by me when imposing sentence upon your co-offender, Lindsay Hoani Beckett, and, of course, as I have just suggested, as the evidence unfolded in the course of your trial.

When dealing with Beckett I was mindful, as I indicated in my sentencing remarks, that it was essentially his version which was before the Court at that stage, although I was supported in significant respects by the statements of a number of witnesses. Rather than setting out again that version, I will append a copy of my sentencing remarks in his case to the typed copy of these reasons.

I have now heard the evidence of a large number of witnesses, including Beckett himself, and I have had an extensive opportunity to consider both the person and the version which Beckett advanced in your trial. Not surprisingly, and for more than one reason, I observed him very closely during the period of five days during which he was in the witness box. Among other matters, I was concerned to ascertain…

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 R v Camilleri

Details

AGLC: R v Camilleri [1999] VSC 184
Case: [1999] VSC 184
Decision Date: 27 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Camilleri, was convicted of murder, rape, and abduction, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where Camilleri appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on several key legal issues, including the admissibility of evidence provided by a co-offender, the impact of drug use on the appellant's culpability, and the relevance of prior convictions in sentencing.

The High Court considered whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence from a co-offender who implicated Camilleri in the crimes. The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of such evidence and whether the evidence was reliable and relevant to Camilleri's guilt. Furthermore, the court assessed the impact of drug use on Camilleri's state of mind and decision-making capacity at the time of the offences. The defence argued that drug use should mitigate the severity of the sentence, and the court had to determine the appropriate weight to give this factor in the sentencing process. Finally, the court had to decide whether prior convictions should influence the sentence and whether the trial judge had adequately considered these factors.

The High Court held that the evidence from the co-offender was properly admitted and reliable, and it did not prejudice Camilleri's right to a fair trial. Regarding drug use, the court found that while it might have affected Camilleri's judgement, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court also concluded that prior convictions were relevant to sentencing but did not unduly influence the trial judge's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. Camilleri's conviction and life sentence, with no minimum term fixed, remained unchanged. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in both the trial and sentencing phases while upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders