R v Campbell - [2015] VSC 181

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0012

THE QUEEN
v
DAVID JOHN CAMPBELL	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 April 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Campbell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 181

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two charges of arson causing death – Plea of Guilty – Fire lit as an act of “pay-back” and revenge – Residential area - One victim the estranged wife of the accused - Remorse – Difficult and disadvantaged background - Prospects of rehabilitation - Whether history of domestic violence an aggravating factor – Serious arson offender – Sentencing Act Part 2A – No disproportionate sentence sought or imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A. Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	Chris McLennan & Co

HIS HONOUR:

David John Campbell, on 1 April 2015 you pleaded guilty to two charges of arson causing death. On that day I heard an opening and submissions from the prosecutor Ms Hassan and submissions from Mr Dann of counsel on your behalf. I must now sentence you for these two crimes. The maximum penalty for the offence of arson causing death is 25 years imprisonment.[1]
[1]The Crimes Act 1958 s 197A.

Circumstances of Offending

At about 12.43am on Friday 20 September 2013 a fire lit by you occurred at 1/3 Deer Street, Deer Park, which was part of a block of units, thus exposing the area to risk. Two people were killed in that fire. They were Genine Brenda Ballantine and her partner Steven Peter White. They were found dead with their pet Jack Russell dog inside the premises. Two other people who lived there, Steven Salisbury and Paul Mayne, had been at home at the time of the fire but escaped.

You lit the fire apparently believing no-one was at the premises. You were hoping that by destroying the premises of Mr White, not only would he be severely disadvantaged but Ms Ballantine would be forced to resume her relationship with you in order to have somewhere to live. Your counsel has described your relationship with her as “pivotal” to understanding why you did what you did.

The deceased woman, Ms Ballantine, was 46 years of age and was your estranged wife. You and she had begun a relationship in around 1994 and married in Warrnambool on 19 January 2009. Eight months later, the child with whom Ms Ballantine was pregnant was stillborn.

Your relationship with Ms Ballantine was marred by drug and alcohol abuse and repeated incidents of family violence. Between 6 November 1995 and 7 October 2011 you and Ms Ballantine were subject to thirteen family violence intervention orders. You were the respondent on eleven occasions and the aggrieved family member on two occasions.

You have been convicted for breaches of intervention orders or contraventions of family violence orders on three…

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 [2015] VSC 181
Case: [2015] VSC 181
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this matter, Campbell, was charged with two counts of arson causing death. The offences were committed in a residential area and resulted in the death of one of the victims, who was the estranged wife of the accused. Campbell entered a plea of guilty to both charges. The fires were lit as an act of "pay-back" and revenge against the victim, and the accused had a difficult and disadvantaged background, including a history of domestic violence. The court had to consider whether this history constituted an aggravating factor in sentencing, along with the accused's prospects of rehabilitation and the need to avoid imposing a disproportionate sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the crimes committed and whether the history of domestic violence should be considered an aggravating factor. The court was also required to weigh the accused's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation against the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court noted that while no disproportionate sentence was sought or imposed, the severity of the crimes warranted a significant penalty.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. It found that the history of domestic violence was indeed an aggravating factor, given the personal nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim. However, the court also acknowledged the accused's expressions of remorse and his difficult background, which were mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, but it also considered community protection and the need for rehabilitation. The court found that the accused was a serious arson offender and imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be imprisoned for a term of 15 years on each count, to run concurrently, with a non-parole period of 11 years. The court also ordered that the sentences be served in a facility that would provide opportunities for rehabilitation and address the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour.

Orders