R v Casey Cameron - [2016] NSWDC 60

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Casey Cameron [2016] NSWDC 60
Hearing dates: 21 April 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, which was unrelated, and then traffic…

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 60
Case: [2016] NSWDC 60
Decision Date: 29 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casey Cameron involved a dispute concerning sentencing for ongoing supply of prohibited drugs. The defendant, Casey Cameron, was found guilty of supplying prohibited drugs and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the possibility of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO). The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an Intensive Corrections Order would be appropriate for the defendant given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court had to weigh various factors, including the defendant's background, the seriousness of the offence, and the potential for rehabilitation through an ICO. The defence argued that an ICO was suitable given the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, whereas the prosecution contended that a custodial sentence was more appropriate due to the gravity of the offence.

The court considered the evidence presented and determined that an Intensive Corrections Order was suitable in this instance. The court noted the defendant's lack of prior criminal history and the fact that the offence, while serious, did not involve violence or significant harm to the community. The court was persuaded that an ICO could effectively address the underlying issues contributing to the defendant's criminal behaviour and provide a pathway to rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided that an ICO would be an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering both the deterrence and rehabilitation objectives of sentencing.

The orders made by the court included sentencing the defendant to an Intensive Corrections Order, with specific terms and conditions outlined in the judgment. The court's decision recognised the potential for rehabilitation and the need to address the underlying issues contributing to the defendant's criminal behaviour, while also ensuring public safety and providing a measure of deterrence.

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 60
Hearing dates:	21 April 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