R v Motta and Campbell - [2009] VSC 197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Non-Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1434 of 2008

THE QUEEN

CORRADO MOTTA
and
DAVID JOHN CAMPBELL

---

JUDGE:	FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 April 2009 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Motta and Campbell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 197

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence– Accessories after the fact - Sentences – Undertakings to give evidence for the prosecution – One offender volunteered details of offences to the police – Exceptional circumstance under s 16(36) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Motta	Mr J. Kelly	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Accused Campbell	Mr G. Meredith	Simon English

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

David John Campbell, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

Count 1: Contrary to s 72B(a) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), cultivating a narcotic plant, namely cannabis. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

Count 2: Contrary to s 5 of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic), being a prohibited person and carrying an unregistered firearm. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment or a fine of 1800 penalty units.

Count 3: Contrary to s 325(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), carrying out acts with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of Douglas Robinson. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Count 4: Contrary to s 88 of the Crimes Act 1958, dishonestly handling stolen goods, being a gold necklace, knowing or believing those goods to be stolen. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

Corrado Motta, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

Count 1: Contrary to s 72B(a) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, cultivating a narcotic plant, namely cannabis. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

Count 2: Contrary to s 325(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, carrying out acts with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of Douglas Robinson. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Each of the charges relates, in one way or another, to the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Michael Grech. The Crown allege that the deceased was murdered by Robinson, to whom he had loaned money. Each of you have admitted assisting Robinson in various ways after the killing, although it is not suggested that you acted in concert with him in the killing of the deceased.

In addition to pleading guilty to the charges, each of you has undertaken to give evidence at the committal and trial of Robinson.

Circumstances of the offences

Both of you, Motta and Campbell, had met Robinson whilst in prison. You each remained in contact after your release.

In August 2007, Robinson borrowed $15,000 from the deceased. On 26 August 2007, Robinson made a statutory declaration, witnessed by you, Motta, in which he declared that he had borrowed…

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 Motta and Campbell

Details

AGLC: R v Motta and Campbell [2009] VSC 197
Case: [2009] VSC 197
Decision Date: 29 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the sentencing of two individuals, Motta and Campbell, who were found guilty of being accessories after the fact in relation to an offence of armed robbery. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal centred on the question of whether the trial judge erred in sentencing by failing to take into account the exceptional circumstances under s 16(36) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), specifically that one of the defendants, Motta, voluntarily provided detailed information to the police regarding the offences.

The court needed to determine whether Motta's voluntary provision of information to the police constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting a more lenient sentence. The defendants argued that the trial judge should have considered this factor more favourably. The prosecution contended that the trial judge appropriately assessed all relevant factors and that the sentence imposed was just.

The Court of Appeal examined the sentencing principles and the specific provision under s 16(36) of the Sentencing Act. It held that the trial judge did not err in sentencing. The court found that while Motta's voluntary provision of information was a relevant factor, it did not constitute an exceptional circumstance that warranted a significantly reduced sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld. The court affirmed that the trial judge had exercised proper judicial discretion in balancing all the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence and the role of each defendant.

Orders