R v Campbell - [2010] NSWDC 249

CITATION: R v CAMPBELL [2010] NSWDC 249

HEARING DATE(S): 3 September 2010

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 3 September 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: For dealing with the proceeds of crime the offender is sentenced a fixed term of imprisonment for three months For the offence of allowing her premises to be used as drug premises the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of six months imprisonment. For the offence of ongoing supply of drugs the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three and a half years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - allowing premises to be used as drug premises - Ongoing supply of prohibited drugs - Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime - Offending whilst on conditional liberty.

CASES CITED: Adams v The Queen [2008] 8 CA 15
Pham v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 25
R v Cheikh [2004] NSWCCA 448
R v Poon (2003) 56 NSWLR 284

PARTIES: The Crown
Jodi Campbell

FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/59959; DC 2009/250008

COUNSEL: Mr A Morris - Offender

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mark Klees and Associates - Offender

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Jodi Myree Campbell appears for sentence today on three separate offences. She had earlier pleaded guilty to each of those offences and so the sentence I will impose upon her for them will be twenty-five per cent less than it would otherwise have been. On one of those matters the offender was committed for sentence, and the other two appear on s 166 certificates. One of the matters on the 166 certificates is an offence of dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime and relates to $1,200 in cash. The other matter on the 166 certificate is as an owner and occupier she allowed her premises to be used as drug premises. In each case the maximum penalty is a relatively small period of imprisonment.

2 However, the more serious offence for which the offender is to be sentenced is one of ongoing supply of prohibited drug. It carries a much heavier maximum penalty, namely twenty years imprisonment. When I sentence her for that matter she asks that I take into account an offence of supplying a prohibited drug, possessing a prohibited drug and another offence of dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime, relating in this case to a stolen mobile telephone. These offences all arise out of the offender’s activities as a drug supplier.

3 The two matters on the 166 certificate relate to the events of 3 June 2009. Police became aware of the activities of the offender’s de facto partner. They searched the premises where the offender and her de facto partner were living. They found a large number of items relating to drug supply, including drugs themselves. When the offender arrived home she was searched also and the $1,200 in cash that I earlier referred…

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 [2010] NSWDC 249
Case: [2010] NSWDC 249
Decision Date: 3 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Campbell, faced charges related to the use of her premises for drug-related activities, ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. Additionally, the charges included committing these offences while on conditional liberty.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each of the offences. Key legal issues included whether the sentences should be cumulative or concurrent, the weight to be given to the fact that the offences were committed while on conditional liberty, and the appropriate penalty for dealing with the proceeds of crime. The court also had to consider the principle of totality in sentencing, ensuring that the overall punishment did not exceed what was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The court found that the offences warranted separate sentences, which would be served concurrently. It gave significant weight to the fact that the offences were committed while Campbell was on conditional liberty, indicating a breach of trust. For the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, the court imposed a fixed term of imprisonment for three months. For the offence of allowing her premises to be used as drug premises, a fixed term of six months imprisonment was imposed. For the ongoing supply of drugs, a head sentence of three and a half years was set, with a non-parole period of eighteen months.

The court concluded with final orders detailing the sentences for each offence, ensuring that the overall punishment was proportionate and took into account the principle of totality in sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

For dealing with the proceeds of crime the offender is sentenced a fixed term of imprisonment for three months For the offence of allowing her premises to be used as drug premises the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of six months imprisonment. For the offence of ongoing supply of drugs the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three and a half years.

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.

CITATION:	R v CAMPBELL [2010] NSWDC 249
HEARING DATE(S):	3 September 2010
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	3 September 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	For dealing with the proceeds of crime the offender is sentenced a fixed term of imprisonment for three months For the offence of allowing her premises to be used as drug premises the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of six months imprisonment. For the offence of ongoing supply of drugs the offender is sentenced to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eighteen months and a head sentence of three and a half years.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - allowing premises to be used as drug premises - Ongoing supply of prohibited drugs - Dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime - Offending whilst on conditional liberty.
CASES CITED:	Adams v The Queen [2008] 8 CA 15 Pham v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 25 R v Cheikh [2004] NSWCCA 448 R v Poon (2003) 56 NSWLR 284
PARTIES:	The Crown Jodi Campbell
FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 2009/59959; DC 2009/250008
COUNSEL:	Mr A Morris - Offender
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions Mark Klees and Associates - Offender