R v Campbell & Greig - [1999] VSCA 177

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 236 of 1998
No. 227 of 1998

THE QUEEN

DAVID CAMPBELL and
DANYON JAMES GREIG

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., TADGELL and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	13 and 14 April 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 177	First Revision 24 February 2000

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Drug offences – Being knowingly concerned as alleged financier in importation of ecstasy – Evidence – Whether covertly recorded conversations to which one only of two co-offenders admissible to explain the other's role – Payment to drug couriers derived from part of large fund of cash in possession of alleged financier seized by police – Whether evidence of the larger fund admissible to explain offender's role as financier – Sentence – Whether seizure of money in financier's possession to be taken into account for purpose of sentencing - Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s.233B(1)(d).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W. Stuart	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicants	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. and Ms P.J. Marcou	Leanne Warren (Campbell) Melasecca Zayler (Greig)

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Tadgell, J.A., in draft form. I concur in the conclusions his Honour has reached and I would subscribe to his reasons therefor.

TADGELL, J. A.:

The applicant, Danyon James Greig, was convicted after a trial in the County Court on one count of being between 22 and 25 February 1997 "knowingly concerned in the importation into Australia" of a prohibited import, namely Ecstasy tablets consisting of not less than a commercial quantity, contrary to s.233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 of the Commonwealth. He was on 18 September 1998 sentenced for that offence to be imprisoned for 9½ years and a minimum non-parole period of 7 years was fixed. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant, David Campbell, pleaded guilty to a like offence arising out of the same importation as that which founded Greig's conviction. He was sentenced on the same day as Greig to imprisonment for 8 years with a minimum term of 5½ years and now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence. The maximum sentence in each case was imprisonment for life.

The circumstances of the importation of the Ecstasy tablets in question are described in the reasons of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Carl James Carey [1998] 4 V.R. 13 and I need not rehearse them in detail. The gist was that a man in Liverpool, England, known as Phil, arranged for Carey and a woman named Prendergast to bring from England by air to Melbourne a suitcase containing 24 plastic bags each of one thousand Ecstasy tablets. The total weight of the prohibited import exceeded seven kilograms, and the weight of the proscribed component drug was about two kilograms – four times the prescribed commercial quantity. The tablets were said to have had…

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 & Greig

Details

AGLC: R v Campbell & Greig [1999] VSCA 177
Case: [1999] VSCA 177
Decision Date: 10 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell & Greig involved two defendants, Campbell and Greig, charged with drug offences, specifically being knowingly concerned as an alleged financier in the importation of ecstasy. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary focus was on the admissibility of certain evidence and its implications for sentencing. The defendants were accused of being involved in a drug importation scheme, with Campbell as the alleged financier and Greig as the individual who facilitated the transaction. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of covertly recorded conversations and whether evidence of a larger fund of cash seized by the police should be considered to explain the roles of the defendants.

The court examined whether the covertly recorded conversations, which only involved one of the co-offenders, were admissible to explain the other's role in the crime. Additionally, the court considered the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the larger fund of cash in Campbell's possession at the time of his arrest, which was derived from the seized money. The court found that the conversations were admissible as they provided context for understanding the roles and actions of both defendants in the drug importation scheme. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence of the larger fund was also admissible as it was relevant to establishing Campbell's role as the financier.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the evidence was admissible and relevant to the charges against the defendants. Consequently, the court found both defendants guilty of their respective charges. In terms of sentencing, the court considered the seizure of money in Campbell's possession and determined that it should be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The court's decision was based on the statutory provisions under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), which outlined the relevant factors for sentencing in drug importation cases. The final orders of the court reflected the findings and conclusions reached during the trial.

Orders