R v Campbell - [2021] NSWDC 122

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Campbell [2021] NSWDC 122
Hearing dates: 12 March 2021
Decision date: 12 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, 7 months. Non parole period of 3 years, 1 month.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Supply prohibited drug >= large commercial quantity
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — solid family and work background- drug user commences to supply-

Legislation Cited:
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v Lane [2020] NSWDC 643

Category: Sentence
Parties: Colby Campbell (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Doosey (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2019/00256359

sentence – ex tempore revised

I am sentencing Colby Campbell today for an offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug methylenedioxyamphetamine, (MDMA); s 25(2) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and for an offence which taking into account only objective factors falls in the middle of the range. Parliament has said there is a standard non‑parole period of 15 years. When I sentence him for that matter he asks that I take into account, three further crimes; participating in a criminal group, s 93T1 of the Crimes Act 1900, knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug; s 25(1) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act, that is 27.8 grams of cocaine, and another knowingly take part offence involving 98 grams of MDMA. It is appropriate that I do so.
While I sentence only for the supply large commercial quantity matter, it is appropriate in the circumstances that the sentence for that matter be increased to allow for his involvement in those other offences in the manner set out by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the 2002 guideline judgment: Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [39] – [42]. So far as the drug supply matters are concerned, they will lead to an increase in the sentence. So far as the participate in the criminal group, as I will be taking into account his participation in organised criminal activity as an aggravating feature for the principal offence, I will take care not to double count that matter. A judge’s role is to take into account all relevant matters and synthesise them. That does not involve doubly punishing an offender.
The offence was committed in breach of a promise to be of good behaviour. The breach of that promise is another factor I take into account in aggravation of sentence. Accordingly, I will take no action on the breach of the bond that is before me. There would be no utility in doing so, in any event, given that Campbell must spend longer in custody than the term of the bond.
Campbell has…

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 Campbell

Details

AGLC: R v Campbell [2021] NSWDC 122
Case: [2021] NSWDC 122
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Campbell, the defendant was charged with the supply of a prohibited drug in a large commercial quantity. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was whether the court should consider the defendant’s personal circumstances, including his family and employment background, as mitigating factors in the sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for someone who had transitioned from being a drug user to a supplier of significant quantities of prohibited substances.

The court examined the principles of sentencing with regard to mitigating factors such as the defendant's family and work background, as well as the impact of his transition from a user to a supplier of prohibited drugs. It was noted that while these factors might typically be considered in a sentencing decision, the gravity of the offence and the large commercial quantity involved necessitated a substantial penalty. The court balanced these considerations, ultimately deciding that the defendant's background provided some mitigation but did not sufficiently outweigh the seriousness of the crime.

After careful consideration, the court determined that a sentence of 5 years and 7 months of imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 1 month. The court concluded that while the defendant's background did provide some mitigating factors, the nature and scale of the offence required a significant penalty to reflect its seriousness and to serve as a deterrent.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 7 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 1 month.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, 7 months. Non parole period of 3 years, 1 month.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Campbell [2021] NSWDC 122
Hearing dates:	12 March 2021
Decision date:	12 March 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, 7 months. Non parole period of 3 years, 1 month.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Supply prohibited drug >= large commercial quantity SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — solid family and work background- drug user commences to supply-
Legislation Cited:	Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No. 1: (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v Lane [2020] NSWDC 643
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Colby Campbell (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C Doosey (for the offender) Solicitors: Ms A Bird (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2019/00256359