R v Campbell - [2017] ACTSC 74

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Campbell
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 74
Hearing Dates:	30 November 2016; 14 December 2016; 1 February 2017
DecisionDate:	1 February 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Total sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment; sentences of 13 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis and 3 months’ imprisonment for dealing in the proceeds of crime to be served concurrently.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drug offences – Trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – Dealing in the proceeds of crime – Concurrent sentences – Imprisonment – Nonparole period – Decline to set a nonparole period – Significant criminal history
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114C Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 148, 151, 161 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 65(4) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 603, 631
Parties:	The Crown (Crown) Jeremy Scott Campbell (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Swan and Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown) Mr K Archer and Mr K Saeedi (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 121 of 2016; SCC 122 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

On 30 November 2016 the offender pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a)On 22 December 2015 he trafficked in controlled drugs other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine and heroin; and
(b)On 22 December 2015 he dealt in the proceeds of crime.

In relation to count one, the Court is asked to take into account the additional offence that on 22 December 2015 the offender trafficked in the controlled drug amphetamine.

The maximum penalty for the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is two years’ imprisonment and a fine of $30 000.

The maximum penalty for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 603 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) is 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $150 000. For a commercial quantity, it is 25 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $375 000. For a large commercial quantity, it is life imprisonment.

The trafficable quantity for methylamphetamine is 6g and the commercial quantity is 3kg. The trafficable quantity for heroin is 5g and the commercial quantity is 2.5kg. The trafficable quantity for amphetamine is 6g and the commercial quantity is 3kg.

In the week preceding the entry of the pleas of guilty, the parties discussed the appropriate charges. Pleas of guilty were foreshadowed several days before the trial was scheduled to commence and entered on the day when it was to commence. The pleas demonstrate some remorse and willingness to assist the justice process. Despite the reasonably strong prosecution case, the pleas do have a significant utilitarian value. The appropriate discount is in the range of 10 – 15 per cent.

Since his arrest on 22 December 2015, the offender has been in custody solely…

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 74
Case: [2017] ACTSC 74
Decision Date: 1 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved the defendant, Campbell, who was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis and dealing in the proceeds of crime. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was the appropriate sentence for Campbell's offences, considering the nature of the crimes, the circumstances of their commission, and Campbell's significant criminal history.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the objectives of deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The defence argued for a lesser sentence, considering Campbell's age and the fact that he had shown some remorse. However, the prosecution urged a harsher penalty, citing Campbell's extensive criminal record and the serious nature of the offences. The court also had to determine whether to set a nonparole period, taking into account the risk Campbell posed to the community and the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the offences warranted a significant penalty due to the seriousness of trafficking in a controlled drug and dealing in the proceeds of crime. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation given Campbell's criminal history. It ultimately decided to impose a total sentence of 13 months' imprisonment, with the sentences for each offence to be served concurrently. The court declined to set a nonparole period, considering the potential for rehabilitation and the overall sentence length. This decision ensures that Campbell serves a substantial period of imprisonment while allowing for the possibility of early release based on good behaviour and rehabilitation efforts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment; sentences of 13 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis and 3 months’ imprisonment for dealing in the proceeds of crime to be served concurrently.

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.