Legal Research
Cases
R v Campbell

R v Campbell

Case [2012] SASCFC 44 30 April 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v CAMPBELL
[2012] SASCFC 44
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Anderson and The Honourable Justice David)
30 April 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - FRESH EVIDENCE AND EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA - PARTICULAR CASES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Appeal by defendant against conviction and sentence - defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly causing serious harm contrary to section 23(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) - sentenced to a head sentence of four years and six months of imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months - on appeal, defendant sought to withdraw his plea of guilty and to have the charged offence tried before a judge and jury - where defendant asserts that he was denied the opportunity of contesting the charge on the basis that he had acted in self-defence - whether the defendant should be granted leave to withdraw his plea - whether there was fresh evidence that demonstrated that the victim had lied in his victim impact statement causing the sentencing Judge to be misled.
Held: Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 15(1), s 23(3), referred to.
R v Pugh (2005) 158 A Crim R 302; R v Collis (1989) 43 A Crim R 371; R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120; R v Moxham (2000) 112 A Crim R 142; R v Clayton (1984) 35 SASR 232; R v Roach (1990) 54 SASR 491; Hinton v O’Dea (1977) 16 SASR 234; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; R v Harkin (2011) 109 SASR 334; R v Perdikoyiannis [2011] SASCFC 82; R v Willetts [2009] NSWSC 1201; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192; Director of Public Prosecutions v Whiteside (2000) 114 A Crim R 234, considered.

R v CAMPBELL
[2012] SASCFC 44
Court of Criminal Appeal Gray, Anderson and David JJ
GRAY J.

On 28 June 2010, Lance Robert Campbell, the defendant and appellant, pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly causing serious harm contrary to section 23(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). On this appeal, he seeks to withdraw his plea of guilty and to have the charged offence tried before a judge and jury. The defendant asserts that he was denied the opportunity of contesting the charge on the basis that he had acted in self-defence.
On 8 December 2010, following his plea and the making of submissions,…

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 [2012] SASCFC 44
Case: [2012] SASCFC 44
Decision Date: 30 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, R, appealed against a conviction recorded on a guilty plea to the offence of recklessly causing serious harm, contrary to section 23(3) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The defendant had been sentenced to a head sentence of four years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The appeal was heard by Gray, Anderson, and David JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant should be granted leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, and whether there was fresh evidence demonstrating that the victim had lied in his victim impact statement, thereby misleading the sentencing judge. The defendant asserted that he had been denied the opportunity to contest the charge on the basis of self-defence.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The reasoning focused on the defendant's antecedents, which included offences of violence, and noted that these precluded the leniency that might otherwise be afforded to a first offender. While acknowledging that the defendant's drug addiction and use around the time of the offence might offer some explanation for his behaviour, the court found that these did not provide an excuse. The sentence imposed was considered merciful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J ANDERSON J (dissent) DAVID J (dissent)

The defendant’s antecedents, including offences of violence, precluded the otherwise leniency that might be received by a first offender. The defendant’s drug addiction and drug use around the time of the offence may go some way to explaining his behaviour, but they do not provide any excuse. I consider that the sentence imposed was merciful. Conclusion I would dismiss both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence. I would dismiss the appeals against both conviction and sentence for the reasons given by Gray J. I would dismiss the appeals against conviction and sentence. I agree with the reasons of Gray J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J,

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44

Most Recent Citation

R v N [2013] SADC 88

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v Burner
[2015] SASCFC 133 Para 16

…tracted, cause serious harm and involve an intention to inflict serious harm and the use of weapons. [11] See R v Koch [2015] SASCFC 31; R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44 . [12] R v Perdikoyiannis, Condo and Peabody [2011] SASCFC 82.…
R v Taylor
[2015] SASCFC 132 Para 23

…tracted, cause serious harm and involve an intention to inflict serious harm and the use of weapons. [11] See R v Koch [2015] SASCFC 31; R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44 . [12] R v Perdikoyiannis, Condo and Peabody [2011] SASCFC 82.…
R v Richards
[2014] SADC 43 Para 21

…t of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. Those decisions are referred to in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Lance Robert Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44. The principles may be summarised as follows:- 1. An informed and deliberate plea of guilty should be treated as final unless it can be established t…
R v Shore
[2013] SADC 135 Para 21

…In R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44, the Court of Criminal Appeal reiterated the law on the subject of the setting aside of guilty pleas. Gray J, with whom the other members of the court agreed, gathered together longstanding authorities bearing on the circumstances in which guilty pleas may be set aside. Application…
R v N
[2013] SADC 88 Para 20

…stablished that there has been a mistake, misunderstanding or improper inducement and there exists a substantial issue to be tried. [16] R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44. [17] R v Campbell [2012] SASCFC 44 [19].…
R v Clancy
[2013] SASCFC 63 Para 25

…volved relevantly different charges and markedly different factual circumstances. Each case must turn on its own facts. [10] (2009) 105 SASR 38. [11] [2012] SASCFC 44. [12] (2008) 101 SASR 21. [13] (2011) 210 A Crim R 1.…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Perdikoyiannis
[2011] SASCFC 82 Para 24

…leaving permanent disabilities. [18] R v Harkin (2011) 109 SASR 334, [42] (Gray and Sulan JJ), [92]–[96] (White J); R v Perdikoyiannis [2011] SASCFC 82, [44]; R v Willetts [2009] NSWSC 1201, [13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187, [40]; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222, [70]; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA…
R v Harkin
[2011] SASCFC 24 Para 24

…ead as a result of the defendant’s attack, the victim has suffered extensive brain damage leaving permanent disabilities. [18] R v Harkin (2011) 109 SASR 334, [42] (Gray and Sulan JJ), [92]–[96] (White J); R v Perdikoyiannis [2011] SASCFC 82, [44]; R v Willetts [2009] NSWSC 1201, [13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A…
R v Willetts and Gurney
[2009] NSWSC 1201 Para 24

…R v Harkin (2011) 109 SASR 334, [42] (Gray and Sulan JJ), [92]–[96] (White J); R v Perdikoyiannis [2011] SASCFC 82, [44]; R v Willetts [2009] NSWSC 1201, [13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187, [40]; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222, [70]; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192, [20]; Director of Public Prosecut…
Lovell v The Queen
[2006] NSWCCA 222 Para 24

…nnis [2011] SASCFC 82, [44]; R v Willetts [2009] NSWSC 1201, [13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187, [40]; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222, [70]; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192, [20]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Whiteside (2000) 114 A Crim R 234.…
R v Elmir
[2003] NSWCCA 192 Para 24

…lletts [2009] NSWSC 1201, [13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187, [40]; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222, [70]; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192, [20]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Whiteside (2000) 114 A Crim R 234.…
Whiteside v Director of Public Prosecutions
[1999] NSWCA 454 Para 24

…[13]; Barlow v The Queen (2008) 184 A Crim R 187, [40]; Lovell v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 222, [70]; R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192, [20]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Whiteside (2000) 114 A Crim R 234.…
Maxwell v The Queen
[1996] HCA 46 Para 2

…n of guilt. Those circumstances include ignorance, fear, duress, mistake or even the desire to gain a technical advantage. [11] Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501. [12] Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501, 511.…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41 Para 20

…may show that his plea was induced by intimidation of one kind or another, or by an improper inducement or by fraud. [7] Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132. [8] Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, 143-144. [9] Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, 148-149. (footnotes included in text). [10] Meissner v Th…
[1976] QB 372
[1976] QB 372 Para 20

…of justice. And that is so even in a case where the person whose free will is sought to be overborne is, or is thought to be, guilty [cf R v Kellett [1976] QB 372 at 388]. Obviously, in such a case, circumstances may arise in which the borderline between what constitutes legitimate persuasion of an accused pers…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
15(1) 2 mentions (from Para 1)