R v Campbell-Buck

[2022] NSWDC 60

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Campbell-Buck [2022] NSWDC 60

Hearing dates:

01 March 2022

Date of orders:

01 March 2022

Decision date:

01 March 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Aggregate sentence of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME - Sexually touch another person without consent (DV) - Sexual intercourse without consent - Intentionally record intimate image without consent etc (DV) - Intentionally choke etc person with recklessness (DV)

SENTENCING- Relevant factors on sentence – multiple offences- pattern of offending- Forms 1- sleeping partner - no consent – videos of offending-victim impact - first offender - offender has underlying mental conditions - special circumstances found - victim vindication - aggregate sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes(SentencingProcedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146

Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38

R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203, at 205

R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245

R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704

R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

Texts Cited:

Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497, 2011, BOCSAR

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Lochlan Campbell-Buck (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S Fraser, Public Defender (for the offender)
Ms N Keay, Crown Prosecutor (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (for the offender)

File Number(s):

2021/00086346

Publication restriction:

The name of the complainant is not to be published, nor is any other material that could lead to the identification of that complainant: s578A of the Crimes Act 1900; s15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.

sentence – ex tempore revised

1. It is never easy to send anyone to gaol, let alone a young person who has no prior experience of the criminal justice system. But Lochlan Campbell-Buck is being sentenced for serious offences and it is accepted a gaol sentence must be imposed. This is because of the matters which bring, the offender, before the court and the various purposes of sentencing that must be taken into account. When anyone, no matter what their background, commits sexual offences against a person they profess to love the law provides a very blunt instrument. That is; that they be removed from the community for a period. And that appropriate retribution be exacted from them in order to, hopefully discourage others from committing similar offences and to encourage them to take up programs and treatment that may be offered to them. A sentence must also offer some vindication to the victim of the offending.

2. Lochlan Campbell-Buck while in the Local Court accepted his guilt and responsibility for six offences which are before me for sentence today. They are:

1. Three offences of sexually touch another person without consent: s 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900 - maximum penalty five years.

2. Sexual intercourse without consent: s 61 Crimes Act - maximum penalty 14 years, standard non‑parole period, seven years.

3. Intentionally recording an intimate image without consent: s 61P(1) Crimes Act - maximum penalty three years

4. Intentionally choke a person with recklessness: s 37(1) Crimes Act - maximum penalty ten years.

3. Campbell-Buck asked that when I sentence him so far as sequence 13, the first sexual touching matter, I take into account, on a Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Form 1, another offence of sexual touching and another offence of intentionally recording intimate image without consent. I will also take into account, pursuant to his agreement and signature to a Form 1, a charge of intentionally record intimae image without consent when I sentence him for the sequence 6 - sexually touching another person without consent offence. It is appropriate that I do so.

Guilty plea

4. The otherwise appropriate sentences must be reduced to take into account the utilitarian value of his pleas of guilty in the Local Court. There are other benefits to a plea of guilty. They mean more than that this matter could be resolved quickly. Importantly, as the Court of Criminal Appeal pointed out in R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [3]:

“It avoided the further traumatising of a complainant by way of giving evidence in court and being tested by cross‑examination. This is of particular importance where young women are involved and sexual offending is alleged.”

5. The offender will have the full benefit of those guilty pleas. I will take care not to erode the benefit of the pleas in the process of accumulating the various sentences when I formulate an aggregate sentence, as I intend to do.

Agreed Facts

6. There are agreed facts before the Court. They must be recounted so that the public and everyone else understands the seriousness of the offences for sentence. I will try and reduce, as best I can, the more prurient aspects of them.

7. There is a statutory protection against naming the complainant and I will refer to her as the complainant. She has a personal right to let people know what her name is but for the present the law protects her privacy, and her name is not to be published without her consent s 578A Crimes Act.

8. The complainant and the offender are both in their early twenties; the complainant was born in 1998 and the offender in 1996. They met through an online dating app and commenced an intimate relationship. They would spend the night together on regular occasions. The complainant had shoulder reconstruction surgery in July of mid-2020 and further surgery in November 2020. Consequently, she experienced pain and discomfort for some months. She would take pain medication at night. This medication made her drowsy and enabled her to sleep soundly. The offender exploited this fact.

9. The first incident is the subject of sexual touching, the intentionally record image and the two Form 1 matters. They occurred between August and October 2020. The offender was staying overnight in the complainant’s home. He was sleeping with her. She had taken her medication. During the night when she was not fully awake the offender used his fingers to rub the complainant’s genitals. He used his mobile phone to record this act. Later, after she had fallen into a deep sleep the offender stood at the foot of her bed and rubbed his penis over her feet and toes. She awoke to see him masturbating and ejaculating on her feet. She did not consent to any of these acts.

10. After this incident and particularly when the offender showed the complainant the video he had taken she became much more wary of his behaviour. She said it was apparent from watching it that she was not fully alert during the recording and that she has no memory of the offending. This fact does not mitigate what was clear and should have been clear to the offender, was that the complainant was not happy about what had occurred, and she made her unhappiness clear.

11. It appears however, and is accepted by the offender, that touching her while she was asleep became a regular occurrence. This was despite the fact that she had made it clear she was not happy and told him to he was to desist from such behaviour.

12. The second incident, the sexual intercourse without consent occurred sometime between September 2020 and October 2020. The complainant was staying at his home and sleeping in his bed. She was wearing pyjamas. During the night the offender removed her pyjamas and while she was asleep commenced to have sexual intercourse with her. She woke to find him kneeling over her with his penis in her vagina. She said, “What are you doing?” He said, “I’m just playing around.” She said, “No you are not.” He became angry at her for making him stop. She felt scared. She felt trapped; she had no way of getting home. The offender did not wear a condom and the complainant did not consent to what was occurring. In fact, she was unable to provide consent because she was asleep.

13. There were other occasions when she can recall waking to find the offender attempting to penetrate her with his penis and she would tell him stop and he would get angry at her.

14. In October 2020 he sent her messages apologising for forcing sex on her and apologising for hurting her saying he could not control his anger and that he was taking her for granted. He promised to stop. He did not stop.

15. The next incident occurred 11 October 2020 and was subject of the remaining counts. The complainant was staying in his home, in his bed. He used his mobile phone to record himself touching her. He rubbed his penis on her feet. She did not consent to this. As she was asleep, she could not consent. The recording went for three minutes and 17 seconds.

16. There is another recording taken later that night. It shows him touching her with his hand on her foot, leg, and buttocks, sucking her toes and thrusting his penis between her feet. Again, she did not consent. The act was recorded and went for two minutes, 11 seconds.

17. The final incident occurred on 11 November 2020 when the offender was staying at the complainant’s home. Sometime around midnight they had an argument. He accused her of cheating on him. He took her phone throwing it across the room. He climbed on top of her, pressed his hands on her shoulder and shook her. She was terrified, she was crying. He placed both his hands around her throat and began to squeeze tightly. She could not breathe, she was grasping for air and coughing, and she lost consciousness for period. When she regained consciousness, the offender was lying beside her saying “I’m sorry”. He told her that he would kill himself if she told anyone what he did. Again, the complainant felt trapped, and she did not know what to do.

18. There are messages exchanged between the two set out in the agreed facts. In one of them he said:

“I hurt you, I don’t like that but I think I enjoyed it when I did it, it’s the power behind it with you passing out and not going way too far like I did last night. I’m so sorry, I apologise it was wrong of me, please don’t leave me.”

19. In another he said:

“I am going to do my best not to use sex as a punishment, it should be a reward and done in intimate moments.”

He later said in the next message:

“I’m selfish, people say go for what you want in a relationship.”

20. There was another incident which was drawn to the attention of the police and the subject of a plea of guilty and a short sentence imposed in the Local Court. That incident occurred after this matter.

21. Complaint was made in January 2021. The offender was arrested, and he spent a night in custody over 28 March 2021. He has been on bail ever since.

Objective seriousness

22. Every act of sexual exploitation of another is serious. The maximum penalties and, where appropriate, the standard non‑parole period are indications of this. Careful attention to maximum penalties and the standard non‑periods is required. They are important references for or guides to a judge’s sentencing discretion. Where a standard non‑parle period is fixed the court has to give some weight to and pay some attention to it.

23. The Courts do not start with maximum penalties or standard non‑parole periods and then make proportional deductions from them. What courts have to do is assess all relevant matters, apply a principle and give careful consideration to such guidance and the guidance offered by other courts. Ultimately sentencing is a question of judgment and no one case or no one offender is the same.

24. The matters on the Form 1 must be taken into account. I do not impose sentences for them, but they operate to increase the sentence that would otherwise be appropriate. As I do so as part of an intensive synthesis process, I have to take care not to double count matters which have already aggravated the sentence to which they relate. In some cases, as made clear in the guideline judgment at [18], the increase can be substantial: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002, [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146. The increase recognises the need for personal deterrence and retribution for the crime for sentence.

25. The first sexual touching event involved skin on skin. The victim was vulnerable for multiple reasons. She was in her own bed. She was used as a masturbation tool. The Form 1 matters involved ejaculation. The other a Form 1, the video matter, which would also have increased her humiliation. Both means greater weight needs to be given to personal deterrence when I sentence for this matter.

26. The sexual intercourse matter involved a sleeping victim, in her home, in her bed. Her views about the appropriateness of such behaviour had been ignored. Both the offending and his ignoring the complainant’s wishes showed significant lack of respect for her as a human being and as a partner. No condom was used increasing the risk of unwanted pregnancy. The episode was brief, but it only ended when she woke and caused it to stop.

27. The next sexual touching matter was another similar incident involving skin on skin contact. It took some time. There were in fact a series of related sexual touchings. Again, the complainant was vulnerable for multiple reasons. He knew she did not want this. His lack of awareness does not mitigate rather it increases the seriousness of the matter, because he was clearly aware of her vulnerability. Again, the Form 1 matter increases the humiliation she would have felt but I do not sentence for that matter.

28. The intimate image matter was related to other offences. It was kept by him. The victim was initially unaware of it but again once she becomes aware of it increases the humiliation and degradation that was clearly in part intended by this offence. The offender does not appear to have any appreciation at the time, or even today, about the seriousness of what he was doing. One hopes that the Victim Impact Statement that he heard read today may help him appreciate how serious his offending was.

29. Turning now to the choking matter. Any assault in a domestic context carries with it undertones, sometimes overtones, of control and targeting. All these offences are part of a larger picture of physical, sexual and mental violence. When someone is assaulted, as the complainant was, there is serious risk of significant harm can be caused. This is one reason why this is a separate offence and why it carries a maximum penalty of ten years. The complainant’s loss of consciousness indicates the seriousness of the matter. One does not have to be very empathetic at all to understand the terror she would have experienced.

30. While the offender has some underlying mental problems his motivation, as he expressed it, showed he was, again, out of control and enjoyed what occurred. Nothing can excuse or justify particularly such behaviour. When someone says they are “jealous,” let us call it for what it was; it is not jealousy, it is an exercise of control over another. It is clear from the material in the communications that followed the incident that he took some personal pleasure from this crime. Thankfully it was of a relatively short duration.

31. The incidents and offending in them were not isolated. He does not claim in mitigation the offences were ever one-off incidents. This course of conduct denies him leniency. But he is not to be sentenced for his uncharged conduct

32. The objective seriousness of his crimes must be determined in the light of all of these facts both individually and collectively that relate to them. They were serious examples of their type and showed a gross breach of trust inherent in a domestic relationship. Each physical act against the complainant was an act of violence.

Other relevant factors

33. The offender had one matter on his criminal record. It occurred as part of this sequence of events but after the offending behaviour for sentence. He thus comes before the Court as a first offender. Generally, and in this case, someone who has not offended in the past is entitled to have their good character recognised by the Court as a matter of mitigation. Past behaviour is generally a guide to future behaviour but there are some matters where the risk of future conduct of a similar nature must be seriously considered; to which I will soon refer.

34. It is clear that Campbell-Buck has some underlying conditions. They need to be addressed. If he addresses them his prospects are reasonable, if he is not given an opportunity to address them or he fails to address them then there is a risk of future offending.

Victim Impact Statement

35. The complainant’s Victim Impact Statement was read today. It relates to the personal harm she suffered as a direct result of each of the offences.

36. A submission is made that the impact on the complainant was substantial. Care needs to be taken to avoid double counting the usual consequences of matters such as this. Given the maximum penalties and given the nature of the matters that come before the Court, tragically, the impacts described by this complainant are those which all too commonly are voiced by victims in such cases. In such matters it is, sadly, the expected course that there will be adverse psychological consequences.

37. The Victim Impact Statement here attests of the kind of harm that might be expected of the offending in question. There is no difficulty with me accepting its contents. It draws to the Courts, the public and the offender’s attention the damage and anguish which he has created and which, as I suspect here, can often be of long duration. For many practical purposes a Victim Impact Statement provides the only opportunity a complainant has to express their views in a public forum.

38. In her statement the complainant set out her fears that she may have to endure a lifetime of pain, suffering, anxiety and therapy. She spoke of how she is still scared to go to sleep and how she still has difficulty enjoying life. She, understandably, expresses a view that no one could ever really understand the trauma she has suffered. She expressed her disgust and her fears that somehow some of the offending was her responsibility. She correctly points out that no decision she made caused any of these events. The blame rests solely with the offender. With counselling she is moving forward, although she still has a long way to go. She speaks of her plans and her concerns about that future. It was a powerful statement, and it will be taken into account. She is lucky that she has strong support from professionals and from her friends and family.

Subjective case

39. The subjective case for the offender is relatively uncontroversial. There is no real joinder of issues so far as the reports are concerned. I think I can accept the opinions of the professionals both attached to the SAR and provided by the defence.

40. Campbell-Buck did not give evidence but there is evidence in his plea of some remorse. There is evidence from what he said to others that he has accepted responsibility for his actions.

41. He is now 25, he was 24 at the time. He was raised in Queensland and came to the Illawarra after the breakdown of a previous relationship; to which there is a child. He identifies as an Indigenous Australian. He has completed high school, he has obtained TAFE certificates, he has worked regularly. A physical eye condition meant that he could not fulfil his dreams of becoming a police officer, but he has been able to work all his adult life.

42. He has a long history of symptoms of depression and anxiety. He takes Seroquel to help sleep. There is no indication of abuse of alcohol or illicit drugs. He has a supportive pro-social family, who have rallied to him. He has a son who lives in Queensland with the former partner. He came to this area in 2019. In 2018 a diagnosis of bipolar disorder was made. There is also material that indicates that he had ADHD and that he received treatment for it as a child. There is evidence of hospital admissions in Victoria and Queensland. It seems that his bipolar affective disorder was in a manic phase during all or part of his offending.

39. The Sentence Assessment Report frankly notes some limited understanding of the criminality of his action and speaks of “mixed insight” and his justification for the choking because of anger and jealousy. It notes some “blame shifting.” It also notes there is a need for intervention to manage and challenge his attitudes and behaviour.

40. A re-offending risk assessment places him “above average.” The assessment was based on static and dynamic factors, but it is frankly acknowledged that the assessment was made without the opportunity of; a proper analysis, a one‑on‑one interview or all of the material available to those who have assisted in preparing reports for the defence.

41. He has engaged with Relationships Australia and has a program in place. He has attended, but that will be interrupted by his sentence. It is unlikely that that program can continue in custody, but it is available to him on release.

42. I have the benefit of a neuropsychological report from Ms Earl and Dr Berry. It notes his medical history. His main issues involved treatment of depression and anxiety. The profile in their testing is consistent with the bipolar disorder and suggestive of adult ADHD.

43. They report he is intellectually capable, despite areas of weakness, particularly in the areas of attention and executive functioning. It is clear from the report’s conclusions that Campbell-Buck needs continued treatment with psychologists and psychiatrists. The report authors suggest cognitive management strategies.

44. Dr Furst, a forensic psychiatrist, provides, in his report, Campbell-Buck’s personal history. Dr Furst indicates that there is some insight into his offending behaviour. Dr Furst makes two diagnoses: somnophilia and bipolar affective disorder - manic phase.

45. The bipolar disorder appears amenable to treatment. Dr Furst notes, importantly, that there is no evidence of any underlying personality disorders. In Dr Furst’s opinion the bipolar disorder can be causally connected to the offending and is a relevant mitigating factor. He notes that main areas associated with it - increased energy, increased libido sex drive, decreased inefficient impairment of sound judgment can be related to aggressive outbursts of various sorts towards the complainant.

46. Dr Furst opines that there is no evidence that a custody‑based treatment program will assist. There is no evidence before me that would indicate that he would get into the custody-based treatment program in any event, but if he does and if it is available to him, he would be well advised to take it because needs every opportunity to deal with this problem both in custody and on release.

47. Both psychologists from Community Corrections and Dr Furst conducted the Static 99 Revised Test. They also noted dynamic factors. My experience over many years has been that risk management can best be addressed by looking at potential dynamic risk factors and matters which might preclude re-offending. They include here, the risk posed by the diagnosis of what is formally a sexual deviance - somnophilia, and of course the bipolar disorder.

48. But the evidence before me shows Campbell-Buck has some capacity, though guarded, for meaningful relationships and employment. He has strong prosocial supports.

49. It is clear that future partners will need to be in a sense protected or cautioned about his behaviour. All of this, as Ms Keay, the Crown Prosecutor, points out raised important aspects of balance and weight.

Mental illness

54. The offender’s underlying mental condition, particularly his bipolar disorder, requires some sympathy and has a mitigatory effect. But they also mean the offender needs to learn from his conviction and punishment to continue to engage in counselling and treatment. His conditions indicate there is a need for him to be monitored for as long as possible to ensure that the community is protected from him. Obviously, while he is in custody the community will be protected from him, but that can only be for a relatively short period, he cannot be gaoled just because he might pose a risk at some future stage.

55. His mental illness is a relevant factor. It does, to some modest degree, ameliorate his moral culpability. It does not mean that what he did cannot and should not be denounced. There is no indication that his condition will pose a greater burden on him in custody than a person without that condition. But obviously anyone with a mental illness while in custody will suffer as a consequence.

COVID

56. It is also clear that from all the material before me and the material on the Corrective Services website that while the COVID pandemic restrictions apply treatment from outside providers, and even internal providers, is restricted.

57. There are other COVID factors that must be taken into account. Although he may have visits, pro-social contacts are restricted and access to programs is restricted. I have heard evidence time and time again about for the need for quarantine. And the hardship it can entail: the conditions in quarantine equate effectively to solitary confinement. The fact that gaols are regularly locked down with people being confined to cells even when they have contracted the disease are all matters I can and do take into account.

Structure of sentence

58. There are six matters for sentence, there must be some accumulation. I do not simply add them all up arithmetically. I have to consider each individually and indicate appropriate sentences. I have to aggregate the sentences, but that aggregation should not exceed what is called for in all of the circumstances. I have to make an appropriate assessment about the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentence: R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 Street CJ at 260.

59. Obviously public confidence in administration of justice requires that there should never be a perception that a person who commits a deliberate series of discrete offences, even involving the same victim, can escape effective punishment. But some matters for sentence were very closely related to the others and many of the purposes of sentencing overlap.

60. The offender’s; background, his mental conditions, his limited prior offending, his relative youth, the fact that he has little experience of gaol or criminals means that the experience of custody is likely to weigh more heavily on him than someone who is experienced in such matters. He will need guidance, supervision and monitoring on release. He will need assistance reintegrating into the community. I can have some confidence that his family will stand by him and help him do so.

61. All those matters provide a sound basis for a finding of special circumstances. But in so finding, and in reducing the amount of time in custody and increasing the amount of time of supervision and monitoring on parole, I am mindful of the requirement the minimum period for which he should be imprisoned must properly reflect the gravity of all his offending and the other purposes of sentencing: R v Simpson[2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704 at [59].

62. It is important to note that offenders who receive supervision on parole are less likely to reoffend seriously than those who are not. Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, Suzanne Poynton, Gerard van Doorn and Don Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497, 2011, BOCSAR. I also note, as Dr Furst indicates, that the experience of prison itself is unlikely to enable him to deal with the underlying problems that he faces.

63. It is critical, as Dr Furst notes at para 8 of his Report, that Campbell-Buck receive and continue receiving individual psychological counselling, addressing both his somnophilia and his bipolar disorder. He must be assisted and encouraged to manage the risk factors, particularly when he is released to the community and in a position to form intimate relationships.

Submissions

64. I am indebted to Ms Keay and Mr Fraser for their submissions both oral and in writing. Ms Keay stresses; the seriousness of each matter for sentence, the need to take into account the risks posed by his underlying mental condition and the need to be guarded about his prospects for the future.

65. Mr Fraser put appropriate weight upon the fact that this offender had not committed crimes before this serious offending. And that his offending appeared to coincide with a manic phase of his underlying bipolar disorder. He noted the need for caution in the future because of the somnophilia; which may be a long‑standing problem. He notes however that it was undiagnosed at the relevant time and that strategies can be put in place to help the offender manage that underlying condition.

66. He noted that the offender did not shirk responsibility by attempting to defend these matters. He drew my particular attention to stabilising factors and noted that Campbell-Buck has a capacity with that support to lead a normal life in the community when he is released.

Synthesis

67. Campbell-Buck must be removed from the community, and he must be removed from the community for a period. A value judgment has to be made. I have to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors, but they cannot lead to a sentence which is disproportionate to the gravity of his crimes. The proper role of the criminal law is however not limited to what is sometimes called the utilitarian value of general deterrence, that is sending a message to the community: Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38, at [52] to [58]. If the message was to be sent by serious penalties it perhaps might have been learnt by this offender.

68. A proper sentence marks the Court’s view of the seriousness of the crime, and it lets others know the retribution which will fall upon them if they commit similar crimes: R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203, at 205. What Campbell-Buck did has to be denounced. It was humiliating and controlling, and it showed no respect for his former partner.

69. Importantly, in crimes arising in a domestic context, in matters involving the sexual exploitation of another, in matters involving assaults, which could have had more serious consequences, there is a need to vindicate the dignity of the victim by the sentence imposed. There is also a need to express the community’s disapproval of the offending.

70. Courts also have an obligation to prevent further offending. This can be done both by punishment but also structuring a sentence to ensure that an offender when released is given sufficient time under supervision to continue the treatment programs which he has voluntarily put in place.

Orders

71. There will be convictions in each matter. The indicated sentences reflect the plea of guilty. There will be an aggregate sentence in this matter.

Indicated sentences

72. Sexually touch another person without consent (DV), sequence 13, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of two years two months.

73. Sexual intercourse without consent, sequence 3, as it carries a standard non parole period, I indicate a sentence of three years with a non-parole period of one year nine months.

74. Sexually touch another person without consent (DV), sequence 6, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of one year ten months.

75. Sexually touch another person without consent (DV), sequence 10, I indicate a sentence of one year six months.

76. Record intimate image without consent, sequence 12, I indicate a sentence of nine months.

77. Intentionally choke, sequence 9, I indicate a sentence of one year ten months.

Aggregate sentence

78. There will be an aggregate sentence in this matter of four years and three months imprisonment. The non‑parole period will be two years and six months. It will commence yesterday to take into account time served. Campbell-Buck will be eligible for consideration for parole on 27 August 2024. There will be a non‑parole period of one year and nine months. The sentence expires on 27 May 2026.

79. Corrections, Mr Campbell‑Buck will go into custody. If you can allow him to hand over any property, say goodbye to his family and then you can take him down.

80. Copies of the report of Ms N Earls and Dr J Berry (Exhibit 1) and the report of Dr Furst (Exhibit 2) to be forwarded with the warrant.

81. AUDIO VISUAL LINK CONCLUDED AT 3.20PM

**********

Decision last updated: 15 March 2022