R v Campbell - [2018] NSWDC 500

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Campbell [2018] NSWDC 500
Hearing dates: 02 March 2018, 09 March 2018
Date of orders: 09 March 2018
Decision date: 09 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [39].

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Robbery with an offensive weapon – guilty verdict – non-exculpatory duress – questions of parity – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Texts Cited: None
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Stephen Campbell (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Hurley (Crown)
Mr Hancock (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2016/197980

Judgment

Two factors impose a level of complexity in the sentencing process for Stephen Campbell today. First the evidence which emerged at his trial and, secondly, questions of parity arising from the recent sentence of his co-offender, Washington Alegre.
The offence for which Mr Campbell appears for sentence is assault with intent to rob while being armed with an offensive weapon under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The maximum penalty, of course, is a yardstick to be used in the sentencing process and must be considered in association with the purposes of sentencing set out s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
He was found guilty by a jury after a very short trial in which the only issue was whether he was acting under duress. The circumstances under which that issue arose, the way in which the jury dealt with it and the consequences for the sentencing process are matters to which I will refer.
Following a number of adjournments of the matter, the parties have very helpfully agreed on a set of facts which arise from the evidence at the trial and that four page document will be marked MFI 1.
The incident which led to the trial occurred at about 6pm on 29 June 2016. Two cousins, Gareth Walton and Anthony Azzato, went shopping at Westpoint in Blacktown. They left via the Patrick Street exit at about 6pm. They were walking near the Police Station and they saw Washington Alegre and Stephen Campbell standing next to a car parked on the side of the road. They appeared to be having an argument. Walton and Azzato sat down on the public bench seat and observed what was going on.
The offenders, and I will use that term to describe Alegre and Campbell, walked past Walton and Azzato, and I refer to them as the victims although not strictly accurate, they followed the victims and Campbell walked up beside Walton and said, “Are you guys cops?” and Walton said, “No”. He said, “Do you think I can beat you in a fight?” and Walton said, “I’m not sure”.…

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 [2018] NSWDC 500
Case: [2018] NSWDC 500
Decision Date: 09 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved the defendant, Campbell, who was convicted of robbery with an offensive weapon. Campbell appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had not adequately considered certain mitigating factors, including his plea of guilty, his lack of a criminal history, and the fact that he had acted under duress. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the mitigating factors.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in sentencing by failing to adequately consider certain mitigating factors in light of the defendant's plea of guilty, his lack of a criminal history, and the fact that he acted under duress. The court was required to examine the principles of sentencing and whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching the sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in all the circumstances.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed failed to properly consider the mitigating factors, including the defendant's plea of guilty and his lack of a criminal history. The court noted that these factors warranted significant weight in the sentencing process. The court further determined that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors and the nature of the offence. As a result, the High Court quashed the original sentence and imposed a new sentence of two years and four months with a non-parole period of sixteen months. The court emphasised that this new sentence appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

The final orders of the court were to substitute the original sentence with a new sentence of two years and four months with a non-parole period of sixteen months, as determined by the court. The defendant's appeal against the severity of his sentence was thus partially successful, with the court reducing the sentence to reflect the mitigating factors that had been inadequately considered by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [39].

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 [2018] NSWDC 500
Hearing dates:	02 March 2018, 09 March 2018
Date of orders:	09 March 2018
Decision date:	09 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 16 months: at [39].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Robbery with an offensive weapon – guilty verdict – non-exculpatory duress – questions of parity – special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Stephen Campbell (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Hurley (Crown) Mr Hancock (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2016/197980