R v Campbell - [2017] ACTSC 204

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Campbell
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 204
Hearing Date:	2 August 2017
DecisionDate:	2 August 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [17]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – damage property – guilty pleas.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 66
Cases Cited:	R v Campbell (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 368
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Tyler John Campbell (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S McMurray (Crown) Mr D Lee (Offender)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Gabbedy Milson Lee (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 218 of 2016, SCC 219 of 2016 and SCC 220 of 2016

ELKAIM J:

On 7 June 2017, the offender entered a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated burglary. On 28 July 2016, he entered pleas in the Magistrates Court to three charges of common assault. His hearing today is for sentencing in respect of the four charges.

The charges relate to an incident in the early hours of 2 July 2016. On the previous evening, the offender had been at a party in Monash in the Australian Capital Territory. He was drunk and left the party after having fallen out with a number of persons.

The offender returned at 1.20 am the next morning with two other persons, each armed with a weapon. They entered the premises without permission. The offender was carrying a metal pole. These facts formed the basis for the aggravated burglary. The assault offences arise from assaults on different persons on the premises. Details of the offences can be seen in the Statement of Facts, forming part of Exhibit A.

The offender was taken into custody on 3 July 2016. He has been in custody since that date. Normally, any sentence of imprisonment imposed by me would be backdated to 3 July 2016. There is, however, a complicating factor. On 13 December 2016, I sentenced the offender for a number of charges, including two offences of aggravated robbery.

The head sentence is due to expire on 3 July 2019. The non-parole period will expire on 13 December 2017. Counsel for the offender submitted that any sentence that I impose today should be backdated to 3 July 2016. I disagree. The backdating of the earlier sentences to 4 July 2016 means that the offender has been in prison since that date in respect of those offences.

I do, however, agree that I should take into account that the offender has been in custody since 3 July 2016 and that his non-parole period for the ‘other’ offences will only expire in December 2017. It would offend the principles of totality, and plain justice, if I were to commence a sentence in respect of the matters for which he appears today from the end of the non-parole period.

At the same time, it is important for me to recognise the seriousness of the offences for which…

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 [2017] ACTSC 204
Case: [2017] ACTSC 204
Decision Date: 2 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Campbell, was convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The charges stemmed from an incident where Campbell unlawfully entered a residence and damaged property. Campbell entered a guilty plea for the charges. The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentence to be imposed for the crime, given the circumstances and Campbell's plea. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate level of punishment, taking into account the nature of the offence, the degree of culpability, and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision. It examined the severity of the crime, which involved not only unlawful entry but also property damage, indicative of a more serious breach of security. The court also weighed Campbell's guilty plea, which was seen as an acknowledgment of responsibility and potentially indicative of remorse. Additionally, the court assessed any mitigating factors that Campbell might have presented, such as background circumstances that could explain the criminal behaviour. Despite these considerations, the court determined that the offence warranted a substantial penalty to serve as a deterrent and to reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Ultimately, the court decided that the appropriate sentence should reflect both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that was intended to be sufficient to address the crime's gravity while also providing Campbell with an opportunity for reform. The specific details of the sentence, including any imprisonment term and conditions, were outlined in the final orders of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [17]

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.