R v Campbell - [1999] NSWCCA 76

CITATION: Regina v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60330/98

HEARING DATE(S): 12/4/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Graham Anthony Campbell

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 28; Kirby J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/31/9163

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nader ADCJ

COUNSEL: P G Ingram (Cr)
J S Stratton (App)

SOLICITORS: R Gray (Cr)
T A Murphy (App)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; Practice and Procedure; Sentence Appeal

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
GDP v R (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
G S & T v R (CCA, unreported, 12/10/89
R v Eastway (CCA, unreported, 19/5/92)

DECISION: Appeal Allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

060330/98

GROVE J
KIRBY J

Monday 12 April 1999

REGINA v Graham Anthony CAMPBELL

JUDGMENT

1 KIRBY J: The applicant, Graham Anthony Campbell, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on 1 June 1998 by his Honour Acting Judge Nader.
2 Mr Campbell was charged under s35(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, with having maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to that charge.
3 At the time the plea was entered, the applicant asked his Honour to take account of two matters on Form 1, they being drive an unregistered motor vehicle, and drive an uninsured motor vehicle.
4 I should briefly describe the circumstances giving rise to the charge. The applicant was born on 25 June 1976. The offence occurred on 9 March 1997, so that the applicant was then a man aged 20 years. He attended a birthday party at Caves Beach. He was affected by alcohol and drugs. The drugs included marijuana and heroin. The party concluded at about 1.00am. Those who had been at the party then drifted to a car park. Whilst at the car park a fight broke out between the applicant and a person, Craig Mitchell.
5 Craig Mitchell, in his statement to the police, acknowledged that he was well affected by alcohol. Although his Honour made no specific finding, it rather appears that, in the initial incident at the car park, Craig Mitchell may have been the aggressor.
6 The two men were separated by friends. They later shook hands. The third person, one gathers a friend of the applicant, then offered a ride to both men. Mr Mitchell got in the front of the vehicle, and Mr Campbell sat in the rear. The applicant, when interviewed by the police, asserted that Craig Mitchell, whilst in the vehicle, leant back and struck him with his elbow in the face. The driver of the vehicle, who made a statement to the police, provides no support for that assertion, though he may have been distracted. His Honour did not advert to this aspect in his remarks on sentence. Whether it be right or wrong, it plainly provides no excuse for what followed.
7 The applicant repeatedly struck Mr Mitchell on the head with a tyre lever, or steel rod. It would appear that the…

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 [1999] NSWCCA 76
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date: 12 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Campbell, the appellant, Campbell, sought to appeal against his sentence following a conviction for criminal activity. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentencing judge had erred in the application of sentencing principles, particularly in relation to the weight given to certain aggravating factors.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate penalty for the crime. Key to this was the evaluation of the severity of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact on the victims. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive, given the circumstances and his personal history, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was justified given the nature of the crime.

The court, after a thorough review of the sentencing principles and the evidence presented, determined that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and took into account all relevant factors. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentence upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders