A The appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment is quashed and substituted with a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

Following a jury trial in the District Court at Gisborne Loretta Campbell was convicted as a party on two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply.[1] Judge Cathcart sentenced Ms Campbell to three years and six months’ imprisonment.[2] She appeals her sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive as a result of the Judge taking too high a starting point and not allowing sufficient discount for personal circumstances.

The offending

[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). She was acquitted on four other charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply and discharged on a fifth charge, the jury having been unable to reach a verdict.

[2]R v Campbell [2020] NZDC 3286 [Sentencing decision].

Ms Campbell was arrested along with her husband, Lucky Campbell, and others as part of a police investigation into methamphetamine dealing in the Gisborne region in 2017 and 2018. Mr Campbell was the principal offender and pleaded guilty to seven charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply.[3] As noted, Ms Campbell was convicted at trial of two charges of possession of methamphetamine (charges 2 and 6).
[3]R v Campbell [2019] NZDC 26383. Mr Campbell was sentenced to 14 years and seven months’ imprisonment on the drugs charges and 12 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) on a firearms charge.
The evidence at trial was that Mr Campbell would travel to Auckland to buy methamphetamine in bulk and distribute it through his Gisborne network at both wholesale and retail levels. Surveillance evidence and intercepted communications showed that Ms Campbell was aware of her husband’s activities and participated to a limited extent.
Charge 2 related to the possession of 140 grams of methamphetamine between 28 July and 2 August 2017. Mr Campbell had travelled to Auckland intending to purchase a kilogram of methamphetamine. His efforts to do so were frustrated because he had been unable to find a supplier. Eventually, he purchased 140 grams. Intercepted communications showed that Ms Campbell was aware that her husband intended to purchase a kilogram of methamphetamine and that she made efforts to help him find an alternative source by locating possible contacts in Mr Campbell’s phone. She also assisted in the sale of one ounce of the amount Mr Campbell had purchased by passing information from him on to the buyer.
Charge 6 related to Mr Campbell’s trip to Auckland on 11 November 2017 and his purchase there of one kilogram of methamphetamine. Ms Campbell knew the purpose of…

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 Campbell v R

Details

AGLC: Campbell v R [2020] NZCA 356
Case: [2020] NZCA 356
Decision Date: 19 August 2020 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Loretta Campbell was convicted of two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The appeal against her sentence was allowed and the sentence was reduced to three years’ imprisonment. The grounds of appeal were that the starting point for the sentence was too high and that the sentence did not allow sufficient discount for mitigating personal circumstances. The Court found that the starting point was appropriate, but that the total discount of 36 per cent allowed for mitigating personal circumstances was too low. The Court found that a discount of 45 per cent was appropriate to reflect the various mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

Orders