R v Casey Cameron - [2016] NSWDC 172

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Casey Cameron [2016] NSWDC 172
Hearing dates: 21 April 2016
Date of orders: 18 August 2016
Decision date: 29 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
For Orders see [52]

Catchwords: Sentencing – ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, suitable for Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited: EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36
Lamb v R [2014] NSWCCA 50
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371
R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Casey Cameron (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Meredith (Crown)
M King (Offender)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 15/177981
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender was committed for sentence on 17 February 2016 from Wagga Wagga Local Court. She entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity to one count of supply drugs on an ongoing basis between 20 May 2015 and 16 June 2015 pursuant to s 25A(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (“the Act”).
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and/or 3,500 penalty units.
The offender has spent 2 months and 24 days in custody since her arrest on 16 June 2015, before she was released on Supreme Court bail.

The sentence hearing

The Crown bundle became Ex A on the sentence hearing. It contained the Statement of Agreed Facts as to the six occasions during the period 20 May 2015 and 16 June 2015 which make up the ongoing supply. A fair summary of those facts establishes that the offender was contacted by a female undercover police officer and gave a false name when she first agreed to supply one point of methylamphetamine to the undercover officer. The first occasion involved a transaction where the offender sent another person (known as “Jake”) to hand over a crystal substance, analysed as containing 0.04 grams of methylamphetamine, for the sum of $100.00. The second transaction involved a supply of 0.14 grams, and the third supply was 0.12 grams. The third transaction involved her arranging a transaction between a person known as “Scott” and the sum of $100.00 was handed over by the undercover officer.
The fourth occasion involved the sale of 0.29 grams of methylamphetamine on 11 June 2015 for the sum of $250.00. The fifth occasion occurred on 14 June 2015, and involved the supply of 0.37 grams of methylamphetamine to a male person, Alan Riach, who it was conceded, on-sold the substance to an undercover officer.
The last and sixth occasion was the supply of 0.96 grams of a substance held out to be methylamphetamine on 15 June 2015. On that occasion, the offender supplied to a male undercover police officer a white crystal substance, which was in fact rock salt, for the sum of $300.00.
Exhibit A contained the offender’s criminal record, which demonstrates one matter in the Children’s Court in 2008,…

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 Casey Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Casey Cameron [2016] NSWDC 172
Case: [2016] NSWDC 172
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Casey Cameron, was convicted of being involved in the ongoing supply of prohibited drugs. The matter came before the court for sentencing, where the central issue was determining an appropriate penalty that would also consider the possibility of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO). The court was required to weigh the severity of the crime against the potential rehabilitative benefits of an ICO. This involved examining Cameron's criminal history, the nature and extent of his involvement in drug supply, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court examined the principles of sentencing with regard to drug offences, considering both punitive and rehabilitative aims. It noted the aggravating factors such as the quantity of drugs involved and the defendant's role in the supply chain. However, the court also assessed mitigating factors including Cameron's otherwise clean criminal record and his expressed willingness to participate in rehabilitation programs. Balancing these considerations, the court determined that an ICO would be an appropriate sentence, given the potential for rehabilitation and the lesser punitive impact compared to a custodial sentence.

Ultimately, the court decided that an Intensive Correction Order was suitable for this case. The defendant was sentenced to an ICO, which included conditions designed to address the underlying issues of his criminal behaviour while also providing a structured pathway towards rehabilitation. This decision reflected a balanced approach, aiming to deter future criminal activity while offering the defendant a chance for reform. The court’s decision was made in the context of promoting public safety and rehabilitating offenders where possible.

Orders

Orders of the court

For Orders see [52]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Casey Cameron [2016] NSWDC 172
Hearing dates:	21 April 2016
Date of orders:	18 August 2016
Decision date:	29 April 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	For Orders see [52]
Catchwords:	Sentencing – ongoing supply of prohibited drugs, suitable for Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Cases Cited:	EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36 Lamb v R [2014] NSWCCA 50 R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 R v Hide [2003] NSWCCA 371 R v Wong [1999] NSWCCA 420
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Casey Cameron (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: A Meredith (Crown) M King (Offender) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	15/177981
Publication restriction:	Nil