Regina v Campbell - [2005] NSWCCA 125

CITATION:
REGINA v. CAMPBELL [2005] NSWCCA 125

HEARING DATE(S): Wedensday 30 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

8 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Howie J at 2; Hall J at 3

DECISION:
Application dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Law; ex parte A-G (1995) 84 A. Crim. R. 142
SP [2004] ACTCA 16
CDH [2002] NSWCCA 103
AJC [2001] NSWCCA 388
ICC [2002] NSWCCA 119
MA [2001] NSWCCA 30
VJV [2004] NSWCCA 415

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
CAMPBELL, Ian Stanley Bruce

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3304

COUNSEL:
Crown: D. Frearson, SC.
App: A. Bellanto, QC./T. Ryan

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S. Kavanagh
App: Bateman Battersby

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/21/1153

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Ellis, DCJ.

2004/3304

GROVE, J.
HOWIE, J.
HALL, J.
FRIDAY 8 APRIL 2005

REGINA v. IAN STANLEY BRUCE CAMPBELL

Judgment

1 GROVE, J: I agree with Hall, J.

2 HOWIE, J: I agree with Hall, J.

3 HALL, J: On 21 December 2004, an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence was filed on behalf of the applicant, Ian Stanley Bruce Campbell in respect of a sentence imposed on him by the District Court of New South Wales (Ellis, DCJ.) on 26 May 2004.

4 The applicant pleaded guilty to the following charges under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW):-

Crimes Act

5 The maximum penalty for an offence under s.61M was, and is, seven years imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty for an offence under s.59 was, and is, five years.

6 The applicant was sentenced to an effective total sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years commencing 25 May 2004. The non-parole period will expire on 24 May 2008.

7 There are two grounds relied upon in the application:-

Ground One: His Honour erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s rehabilitation during the delay between offending and sentencing.

Ground Two: The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

8 The offences were committed between June 1993 and June 1996. The complainant was under the age of 16 years and the applicant in relation to her was in a position of trust as she had been orphaned following the death of both parents. The applicant, who is the brother of the complainant’s mother, at material times had the care of the applicant and exercised authority over her.

9 In written submissions on behalf of the Crown findings contained in the Remarks on Sentence were summarised as follows:-

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

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 Regina v Campbell

Details

AGLC: Regina v Campbell [2005] NSWCCA 125
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 125
Decision Date: 8 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v. Campbell involved Ian Stanley Bruce Campbell, who appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. The applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of aggravated indecent assault and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he received a sentence of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to his rehabilitation during the delay between the offending and sentencing, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the two grounds of appeal. Firstly, the court examined whether the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's rehabilitation during the delay between offending and sentencing. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's rehabilitation and prospects for rehabilitation, including his abstinence from alcohol and undergoing appropriate treatment. The sentencing judge had taken these factors into account and appropriately balanced them with the aggravating circumstances of the offences.

Secondly, the court assessed whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly described the offences as being within the worst category of the range of possible offences for aggravated indecent assaults. The court acknowledged that the applicant's offences were of extreme criminality, and that a significant term of imprisonment was necessary for punishment, general deterrence, and denunciation. The court held that the total effective sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of four years was not excessive, and that the attempted comparison with other cases was not of material utility in determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant's rehabilitation and prospects for rehabilitation, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Orders