R v Campbell - [2010] NSWSC 995

CITATION: R v CAMPBELL [2010] NSWSC 995

HEARING DATE(S): 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29 April,
3, 5, 6,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 May 2010
22 July 2010
22 July 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
3 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: Desmond Campbell, you are convicted of the murder of Janet Campbell. I sentence you to a non parole period of 24 years, to date from 10 May 2010, expiring 9 May 2034, with a balance of term of 9 years, expiring 9 May 2043. You are eligible for release to parole on 10 May 2034

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW-sentence-relevant factors-nature and circumstances of offence-financial gain-premeditation-objective gravity below worst case but above mid-range-nature and circumstances of offender-no special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Coulter [2005] NSWSC 101
R v Gonzales [2004] NSWSC 822
R v Walsh [2009] NSWSC 764
R v Mill (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v King (1997 – 1998) 99 A Crim R 288

PARTIES: Regina
Desmond Campbell - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/207160

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC / S Herbert - (Regina)
S Hughes - (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Regina)
M Bowe Solicitors (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

3 SEPTEMBER 2010

2009/207160 R v DESMOND CAMPBELL
SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR : The offender was found guilty after trial on 18 May 2010 of the murder of Janet Campbell, his wife of 6 months on 24 March 2005. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In the event that a determinate sentence is imposed, a standard non parole period of 20 years applies. The imposition of the standard non parole period applies to offences falling within the mid range of objective gravity for offences of this type.

2 The maximum penalty is mandated where the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence : s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Crown does not contend that this case meets that description. I agree with that submission, although there can be no doubt that the circumstances under which Janet Campbell met her death demonstrate the offender’s sustained callousness towards her, for nothing more than monetary gain. His level of culpability is unquestionably of a high order. However, it falls short of the extreme culpability of the type that has attracted life sentences in the past : see R v Coulter [2005] NSWSC 101 ; R v Gonzales [2004] NSWSC 822 ; R v Walsh [2009] NSWSC 764.

3 Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Court to determine where in the spectrum of objective seriousness this offence lies. The following description of the circumstances surrounding the offence is derived from the evidence at trial, very little of which was in dispute.…

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 [2010] NSWSC 995
Case: [2010] NSWSC 995
Decision Date: 3 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Campbell, the appellant faced charges related to criminal activities that resulted in significant financial gain. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the various relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the premeditation involved, the financial gain achieved, and the personal attributes of the offender.

The court needed to assess whether the objective gravity of the offence warranted a sentence below the worst-case scenario but above the mid-range, as argued by the prosecution. Additionally, the court was required to weigh the nature and circumstances of the offender, including any special circumstances that might mitigate the sentence. The defence argued for a lesser sentence due to mitigating factors such as the appellant's lack of prior criminal history and other personal circumstances.

After considering all the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that the objective gravity of the offence was indeed below the worst-case scenario but above the mid-range. The court acknowledged the significant premeditation and financial gain involved but also considered the personal attributes of the offender, which did not present any special circumstances warranting a reduced sentence. The court ultimately decided that a sentence reflecting the severity of the offence, while also taking into account the personal attributes of the offender, was appropriate. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence within the specified range, ensuring it adequately reflected the nature and circumstances of the offence.

Orders