R v Campbell - [2002] QCA 109

[2002] QCA 109

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
MUIR J
WILSON J

CA No 315 of 2001

THE QUEEN

SIMON FRASER CAMPBELL Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/03/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the Supreme Court on 20 August 2001 to one count of producing a dangerous drug, namely methylamphetamine, of a quantity exceeding two grams, between 1 September 1998 and 20 November 1998, one of possession of things for that purpose and one of possession of cannabis sativa. On
23 August he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for each of those offences with a recommendation that he be eligible for consideration for post-prison community-based release after serving two years of that sentence. A declaration was also made with respect to three days of presentence custody. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. He has a minor criminal history of little relevance.

He became involved in an operation for the production of methylamphetamine after another man, White, came to live at the applicant's house. The applicant agreed to permit his house to be used as a place for the production of methylamphetamine, accepted instruction by White on the method of its manufacture and, under White's direction, produced a quantity of methylamphetamine. Neither White nor the applicant were addicted to the drug.

The applicant assisted in the production of the drug by making his premises available for that production and by participating in its production principally when White was absent. When police searched the applicant's premises, they located 120 grams of methylamphetamine and sufficient chemicals to enable production of a further quantity estimated at between 160 and 190 grams.

There is no doubt that, as the learned sentencing Judge found, the applicant willingly engaged in a commercial operation of producing this dangerous drug. His Honour concluded, correctly, that he must have been aware of the serious harm that the drug does in the community and, by producing it, had demonstrated a complete disregard for the suffering of others that this drug causes. As I have already said, he contributed not only his own labours to the task of production but the use of his own premises for that purpose. His Honour also concluded, correctly in my opinion, that he engaged in the operation, at least partly, for his own commercial benefit. He had been offered and had apparently accepted the offer of an overseas trip for his part in the operation.

Mr Moynihan, for the applicant, puts the appeal on sentence on two bases; the first that there is a manifest disparity between the sentence and that imposed on his co-offender White; and the second that it is, in any event, outside the permissible range for the level of offending in this case.

White was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community based release after two and a half years. He also pleaded guilty and his plea was an early one. Two other persons were…

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 [2002] QCA 109
Case: [2002] QCA 109
Decision Date: 21/03/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved an applicant, Simon Fraser Campbell, who was convicted of producing a dangerous drug, possessing things for that purpose, and possessing cannabis sativa. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for each offence, with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after serving two years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence. The primary issue was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive or whether it was outside the permissible range for the level of offending.

The court examined the disparity between the sentences imposed on the applicant and his co-offender, White. White received a sentence of seven years' imprisonment, which was lower due to time already served for an offence of which he was subsequently acquitted. The court found that White's involvement in the production of the drug was greater than the applicant's, but noted that White's sentence should be viewed with the reduction in mind. The court concluded that while the sentence imposed on the applicant was high, it was not manifestly excessive when compared to White's sentence. However, considering the prevalence of drug production, the court found the sentence to be excessive.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal, set aside the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of four years' imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after serving 18 months. The declaration regarding the three days of presentence custody was to remain in place.

The court's reasoning was based on the comparison of sentences and the context of drug production prevalence. The final orders were to set aside the original sentence and substitute a sentence of four years with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after serving 18 months, while maintaining the declaration regarding presentence custody.

Orders