Legal Research
Cases
R v Campbell

R v Campbell

Case [2021] ACTSC 359 14 December 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Campbell
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 359
Hearing Date:	10 December 2021
DecisionDate:	14 December 2021
Before:	Refshauge AJ
Decision:	(1) Aaron James Campbell be convicted of aggravated robbery on 4 August 2021 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, to commence on 9 November 2021 and end on 8 March 2024. Had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment. (2) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Aaron James Campbell for two years from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023 in respect of the offence of aggravated robbery of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months. (3) It be noted that the conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery has been recorded and the sentence imposed, which conviction and sentence be hereby incorporated into the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. (4) The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023. (5) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Aaron James Campbell be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, namely 14 December 2023, until the end of the total sentence, namely 8 March 2024, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, or his delegate, for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment. (6) For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order: (a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) are hereby imposed; (b) Aaron James Campbell be directed to travel directly from the Court today to Karralika Programs Inc. and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program of that facility by 1:00 pm today, 14 December 2021; (c) Aaron James Campbell be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc., to not leave the facility until he has completed the course and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility; (d) Should Aaron James Campbell leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and…

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] ACTSC 359
Case: [2021] ACTSC 359
Decision Date: 14 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Aaron James Campbell, was charged with aggravated robbery, to which he pleaded guilty. The case was heard in the ACT Magistrates Court. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery, taking into account the subjective circumstances of the case. The court was also required to consider whether a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order should be imposed as part of the sentence.

The court acknowledged that the appellant had pleaded guilty, which was a mitigating factor. The court noted that the appellant had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and that this was a significant factor in his offending behaviour. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was two years and four months imprisonment, but that a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was necessary to address the appellant's underlying issues and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The court made the order for two years, with core conditions and specific directions for the appellant to attend a residential drug rehabilitation program and comply with all directions from the Treatment and Supervision Team.

The court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for two years and four months, to be suspended until the completion of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court also made the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for two years, with specific directions for the appellant to attend a residential drug rehabilitation program and comply with all directions from the Treatment and Supervision Team. The court noted that the conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery had been recorded and the sentence imposed, which conviction and sentence be incorporated into the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court also required the appellant to sign an undertaking to comply with his Good Behaviour Obligations and accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Aaron James Campbell be convicted of aggravated robbery on 4 August 2021 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months, to commence on 9 November 2021 and end on 8 March 2024. Had he not pleaded guilty, he would have been sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment.

(2) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be made for Aaron James Campbell for two years from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023 in respect of the offence of aggravated robbery of which he has been convicted and for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months.

(3) It be noted that the conviction for the offence of aggravated robbery has been recorded and the sentence imposed, which conviction and sentence be hereby incorporated into the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.

(4) The custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be hereby suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from today, 14 December 2021, until 13 December 2023.

(5) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Aaron James Campbell be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender's Good Behaviour Obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, namely 14 December 2023, until the end of the total sentence, namely 8 March 2024, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services, or his delegate, for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate, and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment.

(6) For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:

(a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) are hereby imposed;

(b) Aaron James Campbell be directed to travel directly from the Court today to Karralika Programs Inc. and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program of that facility by 1:00 pm today, 14 December 2021;

(c) Aaron James Campbell be directed to complete the residential drug rehabilitation program at Karralika Programs Inc., to not leave the facility until he has completed the course and to comply with all the directions of the person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility;

(d) Should Aaron James Campbell leave or be discharged from the program before completing it, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm on the next business day with a view to having his Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;

(e) Aaron James Campbell undertake any program, treatment or counselling, urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time; and

(f) Aaron James Campbell comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance in Court in person or by electronic means.

(7) Aaron James Campbell be directed to appear by electronic means in Court on Friday 17 December 2021 at 12:30 pm.

(8) Aaron James Campbell be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court today to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligation under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this order is in place.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359

Most Recent Citation

R v McColl [2022] ACTSC 386

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen
[2025] ACTSC 54

…P v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261 DPP v Smith [2024] ACTSC 99 Mann v Tremethick (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 31 R v Apps (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 369 R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302 R v Goolagong (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 131 R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Law [2021]…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Scott
[2024] ACTSC 378

…VSCA 31 DPP v JJ (No 2) [2004] ACTSC 74 DPP v Mapiou [2024] ACTSC 7 DPP v Smith [2024] ACTSC 126 Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 R v Crawford (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 99 R v Forrest (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 259 R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214 R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Baudinette
[2024] ACTSC 157

…DPP v Dunn [2022] ACTSC 355 DPP v McIntosh (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 348 Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506 R v Baudinette [2014] ACTSC 155 R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 R v Folauhola (No 2) [2024] ATSC 87 R v XXL [2022] ACTSC 24…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Manns (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 405

…atcheldor [2021] ACTSC 208 R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71 R v Bourne; R v Manns [2018] ACTSC 35 R v BS-X [2021] ACTSC 160; 16 ACTLR 238 R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32 R v EC; R v KT; R v Sharp [2019] ACTSC 364 R v Fifita [2019] ACTSC 362 R v Fusimalohi [2015…
R v Campbell (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 370 Para 1

…er 2021 and the Crown Tender Bundle, which was tendered in the proceedings for the earlier sentencing, and which bundle was described in R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 at [4]–[6]. This evidence was admitted.…
R v McColl
[2022] ACTSC 386

…] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 R v Alberts [2021] ACTSC 341 R v BB [2013] ACTSC 58 R v Burge [2022] ACTSC 376 R v Campbell [2021] ACTSC 359 R v Carney [2013] ACTSC 266 R v Castles [2018] ACTSC 358 R v Coleman [2021] ACTSC 349 R v Collins (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 294 R v Cooper [2012] ACTCA 9 R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

R v Tonna (No 2)
[2020] ACTSC 362 Para 1

…In this case, Mr Campbell is still a relatively young man: see R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 at [44]–[48]. This provides that, generally, rehabilitation plays an important role regardless of the seriousness of the offence: R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 at [39]–[40].…
Park v The Queen
[2021] HCA 37 Para 1

…The maximum penalty, the High Court has regularly reminded sentencing judges, is a required consideration and very important: Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37; 395 ALR 193 at [19]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 434–5; [10]. It has the force of a legislative…
R v Murphy
[2021] ACTSC 94 Para 1

…ces ranged from 13 months and two weeks imprisonment to three years imprisonment. Each case had its own particular circumstances. Thus, in R v Murphy [2021] ACTSC 94, Mr Murphy was on conditional liberty at the time, which may have explained the sentence of imprisonment for three years, whereas Mr Campbell was not…
R v LM
[2021] ACTSC 71 Para 1

…In R v LM [2021] ACTSC 71, LM pleaded guilty to three offences of aggravated robbery. He entered a relatively late plea, though after a Criminal Case Conference. One offence was an attempt only as he did not actually steal anything. In the other offences, he stole $539.78 and $1,384.27 respectively. He had a long…
R v McHughes
[2021] ACTSC 92 Para 1

…was clear that he was intending to seek a Treatment Order and the Magistrates Court ordered an Eligibility Assessment (as to which, see R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 at [7]), which was provided.…
R v Slattery
[2021] ACTSC 154 Para 1

…aditional way and then, if the sentence is within the statutory limits of that section, decide whether a Treatment Order should be made: R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 at [3].…
R v Lovelock
[2020] ACTSC 376 Para 1

…ars imprisonment. This is no mandatory sentence, of course, and a number are for lesser or longer terms of imprisonment. For example, in R v Lovelock [2020] ACTSC 376 at [43]–[49], the Court considered four decisions in which sentences of between two years and two years and nine months and 15 days imprisonment were…
R v Crawford (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 245 Para 1

…tially suspended in this way does not mean that Mr Campbell is not eligible for a Treatment Order, given the reasoning set out in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [91]–[111].…
R v Nicholas; R v Palmer
[2019] ACTCA 36 Para 1

…a determination of the objective seriousness of each individual offence. The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal in R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 at [74] accepted that these were relevant in this jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal has also considered that they are of persuasive authority: Hal…
DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)
[2018] HCA 41 Para 1

…ion and very important: Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37; 395 ALR 193 at [19]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 434–5; [10]. It has the force of a legislative mandate. It invites a comparison between the offence actually committed and the worst possible case…
R v Percival
[2018] ACTSC 230 Para 1

…In R v Percival [2018] ACTSC 230, there were four offences, including one at the very supermarket which Mr Campbell robbed. In three of the robberies a larger amount of money was involved than involved in this case: $550, $1,000 and $750. The other offence resulted in no money being taken and so was also an attempt…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym)
[2017] HCA 41 Para 1

…ired consideration and very important: Park v The Queen [2021] HCA 37; 395 ALR 193 at [19]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (A Pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 434–5; [10]. It has the force of a legislative mandate. It invites a comparison between the offence actually committed and the worst…
Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen
[2017] ACTCA 16 Para 1

…relevant in this jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal has also considered that they are of persuasive authority: Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16 at [49].…
R v TL
[2017] ACTCA 18 Para 1

…ACTSC 362 at [44]–[48]. This provides that, generally, rehabilitation plays an important role regardless of the seriousness of the offence: R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 at [39]–[40].…
R v Bennett
[2015] ACTSC 36 Para 1

…In R v Bennett [2015] ACTSC 36, Ms Bennett robbed a service station of $230, pointing the knife that she had at the employee and threatened violence. She was 37 years old and had a “not insignificant” criminal history, but not including any very serious matters. The sentence was of three years imprisonment, but pa…
R v Ridley
[2014] ACTSC 382 Para 1

…effect on the victims, as far as the impact can be assessed in general terms, is taken into account: see R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [51] , R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [42].…
R v JM
[2014] ACTSC 380 Para 1

…riously affects the community and the effect on the victims, as far as the impact can be assessed in general terms, is taken into account: see R v JM [2014] ACTSC 380 at [51] , R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 at [42].…
R v Lovelock
[2014] ACTSC 229 Para 1

…In R v Lovelock [2014] ACTSC 229 at [13], Murrell CJ noted that current sentencing practice in the ACT Supreme Court is that a common sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery is three years imprisonment. This is no mandatory sentence, of course, and a number are for lesser or longer terms of imprisonment. For…
R v Bourchas
[2002] NSWCCA 373 Para 1

…Act 2011 (ACT) applies to exclude the rules of evidence in that Act where no direction is made by the Court, the common law applies: see R v Bourchas [2002] NSWCCA 373; 133 A Crim R 413 at 428; [61]. Thus, a degree of informality in the adducing of evidence in sentencing proceedings is desirable, but fairness still…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 1

…e case of aggravated robbery, the same offence in New South Wales, though named armed robbery, has been considered by a guideline judgment: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346. In that judgment (at 380; [162]), the Court identified features which allowed a determination of the objective seriousness of each ind…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 1

…d robbery, the same offence in New South Wales, though named armed robbery, has been considered by a guideline judgment: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346. In that judgment (at 380; [162]), the Court identified features which allowed a determination of the objective seriousness of each individual offenc…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
85 3 mentions
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
4(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)