Legal Research
Cases
R v Campbell

R v Campbell

Case [2024] NSWDC 147 3 May 2024

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Campbell [2024] NSWDC 147
Hearing dates: 15 March 2024
Date of orders: 3 May 2024
Decision date: 03 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [176]

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – Conspiracy to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273
Amiri v R [2017] NSWCCA 157
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
El-Ghourani v R [2009] NSWCCA 140; 195 A Crim R 208
Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31
Eyeson v R [2024] NSWCCA 52
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia (2014) 46 WAR 324; [2014] WASCA 48
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160; 284 A Crim R 87
R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398
R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; 221 A Crim R 63
R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; 275 A Crim R 233
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215; 221 A Crim 365
Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; [2022] NSWCCA 75
Tyler v the Queen; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458
Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Sentence
Parties: David Edward John Campbell (the offender)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Williams (the offender)
Mr S Flood and Mr M Varley (the Crown)
Solicitors:
Ms N Anastasiou (the offender)
Ms M Dodson (the Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/17350
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 8 May 2023 the offender pleaded not guilty to the following two Counts on the Indictment:-

Between about 18 January 2017 and about 24 October 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Rohan Peter Arnold and divers others to import a substance, the substance being a border-controlled drug, namely cocaine, and the quantity being a commercial quantity.

Between about 24 October 2017 and about 16 January 2018 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Rohan Peter Arnold and divers others to possess a substance, the substance being a border-controlled drug, namely cocaine, and the quantity being a commercial quantity, and the substance having been unlawfully imported.

On 1 August 2023, following a trial by jury, the offender was acquitted of Count…

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 147
Case: [2024] NSWDC 147
Decision Date: 03 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell arose before the court involving the defendant, Campbell, who was charged with conspiracy to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Campbell, who had pleaded guilty to the offence. The prosecution argued for a significant term of imprisonment given the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of the drug involved, while Campbell sought a more lenient sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence of conspiracy to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, and the consideration of various factors that could influence the sentence, such as the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the offence on the community. The court was required to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in arriving at a just outcome. The court also needed to consider whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that should be taken into account in sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, noting the substantial quantity of the drug involved and the potential harm to the community. The court considered Campbell's criminal history and the fact that this was not his first offence involving drugs. The court also acknowledged that Campbell had expressed remorse and had shown some cooperation with law enforcement. However, the court found that the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors. The court ultimately decided that a term of full-time imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the offence and to serve the interests of justice.

The court ordered that Campbell be subject to full-time imprisonment. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of the imprisonment, were outlined in the judgment at paragraph [176]. This decision reflects the court's determination to impose a sentence that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community from the harms associated with drug trafficking.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [176]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Campbell [2024] NSWDC 147

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 21 of 21 shown

Eyeson v R
[2024] NSWCCA 52 Para 162

…rugs imported in this case. Further, the presence of duress does not diminish the significance of general deterrence in sentencing – See Eyeson v R [2024] NSWCCA 52 at [54].…
Totaan v The the Queen
[2022] NSWCCA 75 Para 95

…six years, a factor which should be given weight in the determination of an appropriate sentence in accordance with Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; [2022] NSWCCA 75.…
Moodie v R
[2020] NSWCCA 160 Para 98

…Counsel also noted that in Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160; 284 A Crim R 87 the Court noted the important role of comparative sentences in promoting consistency in sentencing. It was submitted that the need for sentencing consistency should not usurp the discretion of the court, relying on Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 C…
Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 154

…e various chat rooms. This evidence is relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offender's criminal conduct - see Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; 275 A Crim R 233 at [112]. In this case its weight is diminished by the fact that over a three month period he not only failed to report the matter to…
Amiri v The Queen
[2017] NSWCCA 157 Para 49

…ameliorating factor on sentence is not permissible in the context of an offender’s voluntary association with a lawless group, relying on Amiri v R [2017] NSWCCA 157.…
Taysavang v R; Lee v R
[2017] NSWCCA 146 Para 114

…have a mitigating effect relying on R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; 221 A Crim R 63 at [117] and AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 at [92] and Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 at [49] – [52]. It was submitted that in the event that the Court found there was no substantial mitigation, then retribution was tempered by the fac…
R v Pham
[2015] HCA 39 Para 97

…may yield discernible patterns and possibly a range of sentences against which to examine a proposed sentence” – R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 at [26].…
Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia
[2014] WASCA 48

…[2013] HCA 31 Eyeson v R [2024] NSWCCA 52 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia (2014) 46 WAR 324; [2014] WASCA 48 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160; 284 A Crim R 87 R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398 R v DW [20…
AB v R
[2013] NSWCCA 273 Para 114

…age to victims of a crime. It was submitted this may have a mitigating effect relying on R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; 221 A Crim R 63 at [117] and AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 at [92] and Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 at [49] – [52]. It was submitted that in the event that the Court found there was no substantial…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 133

…It was noted that the offender did not rely on the principles in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37. The Crown submitted that the offender’s medical condition namely arthritis was being adequately and properly managed while he was in custody. The Crown accepted the court will have regard to the…
Elias v The Queen
[2013] HCA 31 Para 69

…ce is life imprisonment and/or a fine of 7,500 penalty units ($1,275,000). Counsel referred to the principle in Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 where the High Court held that the maximum penalty represents the legislature’s assessment of the seriousness of the offence and is therefore a sente…
R v DW
[2012] NSWCCA 66 Para 114

…no weight could be given to the concept of loss or damage to victims of a crime. It was submitted this may have a mitigating effect relying on R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; 221 A Crim R 63 at [117] and AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 at [92] and Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 at [49] – [52]. It was submitted that in…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen
[2011] HCA 49 Para 171

…like cases should be treated alike and that significant differences be taken into account in sentencing – see Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49. Arnold, whose role was found to be that of a “vital and important” manager engaged in all key aspects of the conspiracy to import the border-controlle…
Tiknius v R
[2011] NSWCCA 215 Para 47

…nder to some degree of leniency, relevant to the degree of the offender’s moral culpability and prospects of rehabilitation, relying on Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215; 221 A Crim 365 at [30]-[54].…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 98

…was submitted that the need for sentencing consistency should not usurp the discretion of the court, relying on Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 at [77].…
R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi
[2010] NSWCCA 244 Para 83

…posed to the greatest risk of being detected are generally the ones at the lowest level of the hierarchy, relying on R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398 at [61].…
R v Nguyen; R v Pham
[2010] NSWCCA 238 Para 39

…The Crown set out the principles that apply to sentencing for serious Commonwealth drug offences set out in R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106. The application of these principles is not in issue.…
El-Ghourani v R
[2009] NSWCCA 140 Para 84

…ng the objective gravity of a possession offence. The offence could also be attended by a wide range of moral culpability, relying on El-Ghourani v R [2009] NSWCCA 140; 195 A Crim R 208 per Spiegelman CJ at [33].…
Tyler v R; R v Chalmers
[2007] NSWCCA 247 Para 1

…spiracy offence is the criminality inherent in an agreement to participate in organised criminal activity, relying on Tyler v the Queen; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458 at [83].…
R v Falls
[2004] NSWCCA 335 Para 114

…he potential harm for the dissemination of such a large amount of drugs would still loom large in the the sentencing process referring to R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335 at [19].…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] HCA 64 Para 86

…ne factor to be taken into account, with greater significant to be placed on the role played by the offender, relying on Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 at [69]. It was thus submitted that the offender’s role meant that the weight of the drugs has limited relevance in determining the objective serious…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 34)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Campbell [2024] NSWDC 147
Hearing dates:	15 March 2024
Date of orders:	3 May 2024
Decision date:	03 May 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Full-time imprisonment. For orders see [176]
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – Conspiracy to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 273 Amiri v R [2017] NSWCCA 157 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 El-Ghourani v R [2009] NSWCCA 140; 195 A Crim R 208 Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 Eyeson v R [2024] NSWCCA 52 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Milenkovski v The State of Western Australia (2014) 46 WAR 324; [2014] WASCA 48 Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160; 284 A Crim R 87 R (Cth) v Cheung; R (Cth) v Choi [2010] NSWCCA 244; 203 A Crim R 398 R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; 221 A Crim R 63 R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335 R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; 275 A Crim R 233 Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215; 221 A Crim 365 Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; [2022] NSWCCA 75 Tyler v the Queen; R v Chalmers [2007] NSWCCA 247; 173 A Crim R 458 Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	David Edward John Campbell (the offender) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Williams (the offender) Mr S Flood and Mr M Varley (the Crown) Solicitors: Ms N Anastasiou (the offender) Ms M Dodson (the Crown)
File Number(s):	2018/17350
Publication restriction:	Nil.