R v Campos - [1999] NSWCCA 339

CITATION: R v Campos [1999] NSWCCA 339

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60765/98

HEARING DATE(S): 22/10/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Maria Asuncion Chamorro Campos

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P; James J; Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0115

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rummery DCJ

COUNSEL: P Roberts SC/F Veltro (Crown)
P Boulten (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP (Crown)
Mark Klees & Associates (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Commonwealth offences - sentencing - possession of prohibited imports - possession of moneys reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime - relationship of non-parole period to head sentence.

DECISION: Allowed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60765/98

MEAGHER JA
B JAMES J
KIRBY J
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER 1999

REGINA v MARIA ASUNCION CHAMORRA CAMPOS

JUDGMENT

1   JAMES J: This is an application brought by Maria Asuncion Chamorra Campos for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her in the District Court on 12 November 1998 by his Honour Judge Rummery, after a jury had found her guilty of the following charges:
2   (1) that on 14 October 1997 at Sydney she had in her possession without reasonable excuse narcotic goods, being not less than the trafficable quantity of heroin (168.6 grams gross and 139.9 grams of pure heroin) reasonably suspected of having being imported into Australia. This was an offence under s 233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act (Cth) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years and/or a fine of $100,000.
3   (2) that on the same date in Sydney she was in possession of $6,000 that might reasonably be suspected of being the proceeds of crime. This was an offence under s 82(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act (Cth), for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years and/or a fine of $5,000.
4   In sentencing the applicant, his Honour Judge Rummery took into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act (Cth) a further offence under s 82(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act of being in possession of moneys reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
5   On the first charge the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for six years eight months to date from 26 June 1998, the date on which the applicant was found guilty and was taken into custody, with a non-parole period of four years eight months. On the second charge the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 15 months, also to date from 26 June 1998 and hence to be served concurrently with part of the non-parole period of the sentence on the first charge.
6   The facts of the offences were concisely stated by Judge Rummery in his remarks on sentence, in a way which has not been challenged on the hearing of this application.
7   On 14 October 1997 the applicant was arrested at her place of work in the central business district in Sydney. She had $6,000…

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 Campos

Details

AGLC: R v Campos [1999] NSWCCA 339
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 339
Decision Date: 22 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Campos, the respondent was charged with various offences related to the possession of prohibited imports and moneys reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary focus of the dispute was the appropriate sentencing for Campos, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.

The legal issues the court had to address included the determination of the appropriate sentences for each offence, the applicability of concurrent sentencing, and the calculation of the non-parole period in relation to the head sentence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the sentences for possession of prohibited imports and possession of moneys reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime should run concurrently and how this would impact the overall non-parole period.

The court found that the offences were serious and warranted substantial sentences. However, given the concurrent nature of the sentences for possession of prohibited imports and possession of moneys reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, the non-parole period was calculated based on the most severe offence. The court determined that the sentences should indeed run concurrently, leading to a non-parole period aligned with the head sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed sentences that reflected the gravity of the offences while ensuring that the total punishment was proportionate and fair.

The final orders included the imposition of specific sentences for each offence, with the non-parole period calculated according to the court's reasoning. The court mandated that the sentences for possession of prohibited imports and possession of moneys reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime would run concurrently, with the non-parole period set in accordance with the most severe offence.

Orders