Regina v Yves Camus - [1999] NSWCCA 425

CITATION: Regina v Yves CAMUS [1999] NSWCCA 425

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60164/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Yves Camus

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1; Sully J at 2; Simpson J at 12

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0688

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL: I. McClintock - Commonwealth DPP
C. Waterstreet - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Hovan & Co. - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Customs Act 1901 (C'th)
Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914

DECISION: Crown appeal upheld; sentence imposed in District Court on 5/3/99 quashed; re-sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to commence on 4 June 1998 and expire on 3 June 2008, with non-parole period of 6 years to expire on 3 June 2004

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60164/99
WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
SIMPSON J
15 December 1999

REGINA v Yves CAMUS
JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I agree with Sully J
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60164/99
WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
SIMPSON J
15 December 1999

REGINA v Yves CAMUS
JUDGMENT

2 SULLY J: This is a Crown appeal against a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Mr. Yves Camus, [“the respondent”], on 5 March 1999. On that day the respondent stood for sentence in the District Court at Sydney and before her Honour Judge Ainslie-Wallace. The respondent had previously pleaded guilty upon arraignment to a charge that between about 29 May 1998 and 4 June 1998 he had been in possession without lawful excuse of prohibited imports to which s.233B of the Customs Act 1901 (C’th) applied, being narcotic goods consisting of not less than the commercial quantity as prescribed by statute of the drug which is commonly known as ecstasy. The amount involved was 736.5 grams. The minimum amount necessary to constitute a commercial quantity is 500 grams. Possession of 500 grams or more of ecstasy, in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 3 Her Honour Judge Ainslie-Wallace sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for 8 years. Her Honour fixed a non-parole period of 5 years. 4 The relevant facts can be stated sufficiently for present purposes by quoting them, as follows, from the remarks on sentence of her Honour:

“Much of the evidence in this matter was by way of transcripts of intercepted conversations between the prisoner and various persons either in person or on the telephone.

On 29 May 1998 the Australian Federal Police searched the prisoner’s hotel room and located two kilograms of ecstasy which they left in the room and commenced surveillance.

The prisoner said that he had been recruited by a man known to him in Bali who asked him whether he could find customers in Australia for 15,000 tablets of ecstasy. The prisoner agreed, he said, because he wanted money to invest in an hotel in Bali. The prisoner said he was to earn…

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 Yves Camus

Details

AGLC: Regina v Yves Camus [1999] NSWCCA 425
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 425
Decision Date: 15 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Yves Camus, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on Yves Camus for drug trafficking offences. The respondent, Mr. Camus, had pleaded guilty to possession of a commercial quantity of ecstasy in contravention of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The primary issue for the Court was whether the sentence of imprisonment for eight years, with a non-parole period of five years, imposed by the District Court was appropriately severe in the circumstances of the offence. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence was appellably inadequate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The Court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence. These included the gravity of the crime, the respondent's role in the drug trafficking operation, the amount of drugs involved, and the need to deter similar offences. The Court highlighted that the respondent was not a minor player in the trafficking operation but rather a significant link in the chain. The Court also noted the potential societal harm caused by the widespread availability of drugs such as ecstasy. While the Court acknowledged the respondent's expressions of remorse and the hardships he might face in serving his sentence, it determined that these factors did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence.

The Court compared the respondent's sentence with those of other participants in the same drug trafficking operation, finding them to be considerably harsher. This comparison reinforced the Court's view that the sentence imposed on the respondent was inadequate. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the Crown's appeal, quashed the original sentence, and re-sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for ten years with a non-parole period of six years. The new sentence was set to commence on 4 June 1998 and expire on 3 June 2008, with the non-parole period expiring on 3 June 2004.

Orders