R v Campbell - [2017] VSC 227

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0158

THE QUEEN
V
STUART ALOYSIUS BAINBRIDGE CAMPBELL	Accused

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Campbell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 227

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Plea of guilty - Undertaking to give evidence in the trial of accomplices – Remorse – Young offender – No prior criminal history – Reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation – Mental state – Depression - Dyslexia – Effect on custodial circumstances - S 5 (2AB) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Sexton	Galbally O’Byran

HIS HONOUR:

Stuart Aloysius Bainbridge Campbell, on 20 April 2017 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to one charge of the murder of Joshua Kane.

On 1 May 2017, during your plea hearing before me, Mr Lewis, the Crown Prosecutor, presented an opening and made submissions as to the sentence to be imposed on you. Mr Sexton, of counsel, made the plea on your behalf. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and it is now my responsibility to sentence you for this crime.

It is alleged that you were involved in the killing of Joshua Kane with two accomplices, Lanie Snell and Samuel Worthy on 23 January 2016. Snell and Worthy have pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder brought against them and will stand their trial before me commencing on 8 May 2017. At that trial the prosecution proposes to call you as a witness and you have given a sworn undertaking to give evidence in accordance with a police statement you made on 7 April 2017.

Before that trial can proceed and before you can be called as a witness it is necessary for me to sentence you for this offence of murder. By your plea of guilty, and through your counsel, you admit that the facts contained in the prosecution opening and those that you have detailed in your statement, are accurate. Indeed, you have sworn as to the truth of your statement before me during the plea.

Circumstances of the offence

Joshua Kane was 20 years of age at the time of his death on 23 January 2016 and had lived in Hamilton in regional Victoria. He had been in a relationship with Emily Kenny which had ended. Kenny later commencing a new relationship with the accused man Worthy who ultimately caused Kane’s death. The deceased was also friendly with the accused Lanie Snell and with you, whom he had met at a TAFE college during year 11.

Commencing on 4 May 2014, Joshua Kane had moved into a Hamilton caravan park and lived there until his death. Shortly afterwards you also moved into that caravan park but later moved out when you obtained a bursary to attend…

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] VSC 227
Case: [2017] VSC 227
Decision Date: 3 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved the sentencing of a young offender who had pleaded guilty to a charge of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account various mitigating factors. Among these were the offender's undertaking to give evidence against accomplices, the presence of remorse, the offender's youth, lack of prior criminal history, and reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation. The offender also suffered from depression and dyslexia, which had a significant impact on the custodial circumstances.

The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, considering the mitigating factors presented. The court had to consider the statutory provisions under section 5(2AB) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which required it to consider the offender's age, prospects of rehabilitation, and mental state in determining the sentence. The court also had to weigh the offender's undertaking to testify against accomplices as an indication of remorse and cooperation with the legal process.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant mitigating factors and the offender's lack of prior criminal history. The court noted the offender's young age, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the impact of mental health issues, including depression and dyslexia, on the custodial circumstances. The court found that these factors warranted a sentence that focused on rehabilitation rather than solely on punishment. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that aimed to balance the need for retribution with the opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The court further considered the undertaking to testify against accomplices as an indication of remorse and cooperation.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, taking into account the mitigating factors and the need for rehabilitation. The precise terms of the sentence were left to the discretion of the sentencing judge, who was directed to consider the specific circumstances and statutory requirements in arriving at a final determination.

Orders