Legal Research
Cases
R v Campbell

R v Campbell

Case [2016] QCA 42 1 March 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Campbell [2016] QCA 42

PARTIES:

R
v
CAMPBELL, Dean Stuart
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 155 of 2015
DC No 504 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 22 June 2015

DELIVERED ON:

1 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of count 1, wilful damage, and count 2, grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment on the first count and four years imprisonment, suspended after two years, with an operational period of four years for the second count, to be served concurrently – where the complainant drove to the applicant’s house to collect part of a small debt – where the applicant left his house armed with a knife and confronted the complainant, who was sitting in his car – where the applicant punched the complainant through the open car window – where the applicant kneed the complainant’s car door, causing almost $1,000 worth of damage – where the complainant got out of the car and the applicant wielded a knife and hit the complainant again, striking his wrist – where the injury inflicted on the complainant’s wrist severed four tendons and the radial nerve in the right hand – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Hamidzadeh v R [2013] 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550, followed
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited
R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed
Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

W Sofronoff QC, with A J Kimmins, for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Potts Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Dean Stuart Campbell, was convicted in June 2015 after a five-day trial in the District Court at Southport of wilful damage and unlawful grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment to be suspended after two years with an operational period of four years. He has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence contending it was manifestly excessive in that the judge gave no or insufficient weight to the issue of provocation, and the delay in finalising proceedings, and other mitigating circumstances.
I will not repeat the details…

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 [2016] QCA 42
Case: [2016] QCA 42
Decision Date: 1 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved the applicant appealing against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The applicant was convicted of wilful damage and grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment for the first count and a suspended sentence of four years, operational for four years, for the second count, to run concurrently. The underlying incident involved the applicant confronting the complainant, who had driven to the applicant’s house to collect a debt. The confrontation escalated when the applicant, armed with a knife, attacked the complainant while he was in his car. This resulted in the complainant suffering significant damage to his wrist, with four tendons and the radial nerve severed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant’s culpability, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court also examined whether the sentence was disproportionate to the severity of the crime and the harm caused to the complainant.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It considered the applicant’s actions to be of high culpability due to the premeditated nature of the attack, the use of a weapon, and the severity of the injury inflicted. The court determined that the sentence, while severe, was proportionate to the nature of the offence and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court also noted the mitigating factors, including the applicant's otherwise unblemished criminal record and his remorse. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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 [2016] QCA 42

Most Recent Citation

R v Woods (No 2) [2018] QCA 312

Cases citing this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Kourpanidis v The Queen
[2022] ACTCA 11 Para 1

…te to the provocation: see for example, Tyne v Tasmania [2005] TASSC 119; 158 A Crim R 208 at [18] per Underwood CJ and [28] per Blow J; R v Campbell [2016] QCA 42 at [36]-[38] per Morrison JA. Each case is necessarily fact specific.…
R v A1 (No. 6)
[2019] NSWSC 1581 Para 75

…vocation as a mitigating factor, as considered in Tyne v Tasmania and Hamidzadeh v R , was endorsed by the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v Campbell [2016] QCA 42 at [36]-[37].…
R v Woods (No 2)
[2018] QCA 312 Para 1

…companion with the scissors, giving rise to an additional offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whist armed. [9][2012] QCA 141. [10][2016] QCA 42. [11][2012] QCA 57.…

View all 3 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Hamidzadeh v R
[2012] NZCA 550

…he radial nerve in the right hand – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Hamidzadeh v R [2013] 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed Tyne…
Felicite v The Queen
[2011] VSCA 274 Para 12

…ed here. [24] Fox and Freiberg at paragraph 4.135, referring to DPP v Douglas [2006] VSCA 160 at [12]; Felicite v The Queen [2011] VSCA 274 at [34]. [34]Another is that the person is less culpable because there are good and legally acceptable reasons for the offender’s actions in responding to the provocative cond…
R v Phillips
[2008] QCA 284

…ed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited COUNSEL: W Sofronoff…
R v Trieu
[2008] QCA 28 Para 4

…secutor referred to cases including R v Trieu [3] where a sentence of five years imprisonment was imposed after a trial. [1]AB 12. [2]AB 43. [3][2008] QCA 28.…
R v Brand
[2006] QCA 525

…nd a half years imprisonment suspended earlier than the half-way point to reflect the mitigating features. [4][2006] QCA 8. [5][2005] QCA 471. [6][2006] QCA 525. [7]In reply the prosecutor stated that the delay in the conclusion of this matter by way of a trial was not unusual at Southport; there had been a commi…
DPP v Douglas
[2006] VSCA 160 Para 12

…the application of provocation was not advanced here. [24] Fox and Freiberg at paragraph 4.135, referring to DPP v Douglas [2006] VSCA 160 at [12]; Felicite v The Queen [2011] VSCA 274 at [34]. [34]Another is that the person is less culpable because there are good and legally acceptable reasons for the offender’s…
R v O'Dell
[2006] QCA 8

…judge to impose a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment suspended earlier than the half-way point to reflect the mitigating features. [4][2006] QCA 8. [5][2005] QCA 471. [6][2006] QCA 525. [7]In reply the prosecutor stated that the delay in the conclusion of this matter by way of a trial was not unusua…
R v Berryman
[2005] QCA 471

…a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment suspended earlier than the half-way point to reflect the mitigating features. [4][2006] QCA 8. [5][2005] QCA 471. [6][2006] QCA 525. [7]In reply the prosecutor stated that the delay in the conclusion of this matter by way of a trial was not unusual at Southport; the…
Tyne v Tasmania
[2005] TASSC 119

…008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited COUNSEL: W Sofronoff QC, with A J Kimmins, for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Potts Lawyer…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…tly excessive Hamidzadeh v R [2013] 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed Wong v…
R v Johnston
[2004] QCA 12

…within a private home, cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive, or indeed excessive at all. It was an appropriate sentence (cf R v Johnston [2004] QCA 12). Further, since the matter went to trial, it was entirely within the Judge’s discretion not to ameliorate that sentence by adding a recommendation in rela…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64

…A 28, followed Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited COUNSEL: W Sofronoff QC, with A J Kimmins, for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Potts Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensla…
Kaporonovski v The Queen
[1973] HCA 35

…ight such as has rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. [9](1973) 133 CLR 209. [10]Macquarie Dictionary Federation Edition. [11] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(2)(c). [12]Above, s 9(2)(f). [13]Above, s 9(3)(f). [14](2001) 207 CLR 584. [15](2005) 228 CLR 357. [16]AB 38.…
[2013] 1 NZLR 369
[2013] 1 NZLR 369

…four tendons and the radial nerve in the right hand – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Hamidzadeh v R [2013] 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
9(2)(c) 1 mention

CITATION:	R v Campbell [2016] QCA 42
PARTIES:	R v CAMPBELL, Dean Stuart (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 155 of 2015 DC No 504 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 22 June 2015
DELIVERED ON:	1 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 December 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was found guilty of count 1, wilful damage, and count 2, grievous bodily harm – where the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment on the first count and four years imprisonment, suspended after two years, with an operational period of four years for the second count, to be served concurrently – where the complainant drove to the applicant’s house to collect part of a small debt – where the applicant left his house armed with a knife and confronted the complainant, who was sitting in his car – where the applicant punched the complainant through the open car window – where the applicant kneed the complainant’s car door, causing almost $1,000 worth of damage – where the complainant got out of the car and the applicant wielded a knife and hit the complainant again, striking his wrist – where the injury inflicted on the complainant’s wrist severed four tendons and the radial nerve in the right hand – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Hamidzadeh v R [2013] 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Phillips & Woolgrove (2008) 188 A Crim R 133; [2008] QCA 284, cited R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, followed Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, followed Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited
COUNSEL:	W Sofronoff QC, with A J Kimmins, for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Potts Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent