R v Campbell - [2024] NSWDC 413

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Campbell [2024] NSWDC 413
Hearing dates: 14, 16 August 2024
Date of orders: 16 August 2024
Decision date: 16 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [96]-[101].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – PLEAS OF GUILTY
AID IN IMPORTATION OF COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF BORDER CONTROLLED DRUG - 53.46 kilograms of methamphetamine – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.1(1).
AID IN TRAFFICKING OF MARKETABLE QUANTITY OF CONTROLLED DRUG - 492.7 grams of Cocaine - Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 302.3(1).
POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED FIREARM - Gel ball air gun.
Criminal history – Disadvantaged background – Contrition and remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Limited involvement in importation and trafficking.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
DrugCourt Act 1998
Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:
Rex v Smith [2023] NSWDC 254, [81]-[82].
XiaovR [2018] NSWCCA 4.

Texts Cited:
Bugmy Bar Book.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Joshua Michael Campbell
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Ms Vella, F.
Offender – Ms Khalilzadeh, R.
Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender – Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT)

File Number(s): 2022/00339380
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Joshua Michael Campbell stands for sentence as a result of pleading guilty to four charges contained on an indictment on which he was arraigned before me on 14 August 2024. He also asks me to deal with him on a charge contained in a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for a crime to which he has pleaded guilty in the Local Court. The indictment was presented only as a matter of convenience. It is agreed that the offender pleaded guilty to all relevant charges at the earliest available opportunity in the Local Court.

Charges

Charges under both Federal and State laws are contained in the indictment. For charges under State law, the offender is entitled a discount of 25% of the sentence properly to be passed for his offending. For the charges against the law of the Commonwealth, I shall allow a discount under s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in conformity with Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4. There are three charges under State law. The first is Count 3 in the indictment. The second is Count 4, but that is to be dealt with on a Form 1 referable to Count 3. The third State charge is the one on the s 166 certificate. For the State offences, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence.
There are two charges under Federal law. They cannot be dealt with in an aggregate sentence including State offences. As to whether the Court can impose an aggregate Federal sentence, there is currently some doubt. It is an issue on which the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal is currently reserved. Accordingly, I shall impose…

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 [2024] NSWDC 413
Case: [2024] NSWDC 413
Decision Date: 16 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell involved the defendant, Campbell, who was found guilty of aiding in the importation of a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically 53.46 kilograms of methamphetamine, and aiding in the trafficking of a marketable quantity of a controlled drug, specifically 492.7 grams of cocaine. Campbell was also found guilty of possessing a prohibited firearm, a gel ball air gun. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Campbell.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the nature and extent of Campbell's involvement in the drug importation and trafficking activities, the quantity of drugs involved, and the presence of a firearm in his possession. Additionally, the court needed to weigh Campbell's criminal history, his disadvantaged background, his display of contrition and remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court acknowledged Campbell's limited involvement in the importation and trafficking activities and took into account his disadvantaged background, his expression of contrition and remorse, and his good prospects for rehabilitation. These mitigating factors, along with the absence of any significant criminal history prior to this offence, were considered in the sentencing process. The court ultimately determined that Campbell's offending warranted a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the crimes and the mitigating factors present in his case.

The court made several orders, including a sentence of imprisonment for Campbell, along with specific directives and conditions aimed at promoting his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The exact details of the orders can be found in paragraphs [96] to [101] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [96]-[101].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Campbell [2024] NSWDC 413
Hearing dates:	14, 16 August 2024
Date of orders:	16 August 2024
Decision date:	16 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [96]-[101].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – PLEAS OF GUILTY AID IN IMPORTATION OF COMMERCIAL QUANTITY OF BORDER CONTROLLED DRUG - 53.46 kilograms of methamphetamine – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 307.1(1). AID IN TRAFFICKING OF MARKETABLE QUANTITY OF CONTROLLED DRUG - 492.7 grams of Cocaine - Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 302.3(1). POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED FIREARM - Gel ball air gun. Criminal history – Disadvantaged background – Contrition and remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Limited involvement in importation and trafficking.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 DrugCourt Act 1998 Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Rex v Smith [2023] NSWDC 254, [81]-[82]. XiaovR [2018] NSWCCA 4.
Texts Cited:	Bugmy Bar Book.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown – R (NSW) Joshua Michael Campbell
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Ms Vella, F. Offender – Ms Khalilzadeh, R. Solicitors: Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Offender – Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT)
File Number(s):	2022/00339380
Publication restriction:	Nil.