R v Camplin - [2004] NSWCCA 29

CITATION: R v Camplin [2004] NSWCCA 29

HEARING DATE(S): 24/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Barr J at 3

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal; 2. Quash the non-parole period on the first count and substitute a non-parole period of one year nine and one half months expiring on 18 June 2005; 3. Declare that the applicant will be eligible for release on parole on 18 June 2005.

CATCHWORDS: criminal law - sentencing - ongoing supply of amphetamine

CASES CITED: R v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47

PARTIES :
REGINA
Rhys Martin Price CAMPLIN

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60391/03

COUNSEL: Crown: D U Arnott
Applicant: R J Button

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Applicant: W Grant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0167

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : McGuire DCJ

60391/03

LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
BARR J
Tuesday, 24 February 2004

REGINA v Rhys Martin Price CAMPLIN

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: I agree with the orders proposed and with the reasons given by Barr J therein.

2 SIMPSON J: I also agree.

3 BARR J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. The applicant was charged with two offences. The first was that between 3 October and 3 November 2002 he engaged in the ongoing supply of the prohibited drug amphetamine. The second was that on 4 November 2003 he supplied methylamphetamine. On the second count, Judge McGuire sentenced him to a fixed term of ten months and on the first, and taking into account four matters on a schedule, to imprisonment for an accumulated term of two years and eight months. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of two years on the first count, which produced an effective sentence of three years and six months and an effective non-parole period of two years and ten months.

4 The applicant was dealing in drugs from premises in a caravan park at Miranda. During the period limited by the first charge an undercover police operative attended at those premises on a number of occasions to buy drugs. He began by asking whether he could purchase $50 worth and the applicant replied that he did not supply anything worth less than $200. The first supply was of one gram of methylamphetamine for $200 on 4 October. The next supply was on 9 October, when the applicant sold the operative half a gram of the same drug for $100. A further one gram was sold on 15 October for $200.

5 During their conversations the applicant offered more than once to supply a crystallised form of methylamphetamine, commonly known as “ice”. The operative at first declined the offer but called at the premises again on 4 November. The applicant said that he had plenty of “ice” available. He had a number of small bags containing the substance, which he offered at $20 each. They negotiated the sale of…

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 Camplin

Details

AGLC: R v Camplin [2004] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 24 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Camplin, the respondent, a known drug dealer, was convicted for his role in the ongoing supply of amphetamines to a network of dealers. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent appealed his sentence on the basis that the trial judge had misapplied the law in determining the appropriate punishment. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his application of sentencing principles in relation to the ongoing nature of the respondent's involvement in the supply of drugs.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and considered the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the totality of the respondent's criminal conduct, including the persistent and organised nature of the supply of amphetamines. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various sentencing objectives and had not erred in his application of the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The High Court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of a defendant's criminal conduct when sentencing, particularly in cases involving the supply of dangerous drugs. The court reaffirmed the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence in such cases, while also recognising the potential for rehabilitation. The respondent's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed. The decision underscores the courts' commitment to ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of drug supply.

Orders