R v Cameron - [2018] NZHC 81

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION

OF IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CO-DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-219 [2018] NZHC 81

THE QUEEN

v

JAMIE CAMERON

Hearing: 9 February 2018

Appearances:

D G Johnstone for Crown
G B Morison and D S Niven for Prisoner

Judgment:

9 February 2018

SENTENCING BY PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
B G Morrison, Barrister, Auckland

R v CAMERON [2018] NZHC 81 [9 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Jamie Cameron has pleaded guilty to four drugs charges: one representative charge of importing, two representative charges of selling, and one charge of possessing for the purposes of sale, the Class C controlled drug that is difficult to pronounce but is known as 4-MEC. This is a controlled drug analogue of methcathinone which mimics the effects of ecstasy. The maximum penalty for each charge is eight years’ imprisonment.

[2] After a four-month trial in 2014, Mr Cameron was originally found guilty of a greater number of similar charges relating to the same conduct and events. In February
2015, he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by Woodhouse J.1 But his

convictions were overturned on appeal and a retrial ordered on the basis of the Supreme Court’s clarification of the legal elements of those offences.2 Two weeks before the retrial was scheduled, he pleaded guilty to the current charges, on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. Now I sentence Mr Cameron for them.

Approach to sentencing

[3] Sentencing is conducted for the purposes, and according to the principles, set out in ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act 2002. I have particular regard to: the purposes of holding Mr Cameron accountable for the harm done to the community; promoting in him a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgement of, that harm; and denouncing his conduct and deterring others from committing similar offences. I take into account: the need to recognise the gravity of the offending including the degree of Mr Cameron’s culpability, the seriousness of his offending; the importance of consistency with other sentences; the legal requirement that I must impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

[4] In relation to consistency, I regard Woodhouse J’s 2015 sentence as consistent with the sentences of Mr Cameron’s co-defendants, whose convictions were upheld by the Supreme Court. I have regard to it accordingly. But the differences between
the circumstances now and then mean the 2015 sentence does not determine the

1 R v Chase [2015] NZHC 317 [2015 Sentence] at [101]–[103].
2 Cameron v R [2017] NZSC 89, (2017) 28 CRNZ 166.

sentence today. I note also that I suppress the identities of Mr Cameron’s co- defendants who are still to face trial.

What happened?

[5] Mr Cameron, these charges arise out of your involvement with the marketing and distribution of drug products by an organisation known as the London Underground, established by the…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2018] NZHC 81
Case: [2018] NZHC 81
Decision Date: 9 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cameron involved Jamie Cameron, who pleaded guilty to four drug charges related to the importation, sale, and possession for sale of a controlled drug analogue known as 4-MEC. The court, presided over by Palmer J, was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the legal principles set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The key issues included the starting point for sentencing, adjustments for personal circumstances, the effect of a guilty plea, and the overall sentence considering the totality of the offending.

The court considered the starting point for sentencing, taking into account the original sentence of eight years imposed in 2015 by Woodhouse J, which had been overturned on appeal. The court adjusted the starting point to eight years, reflecting the greater uncertainty about the extent of Cameron's culpability. The court then considered adjustments for aggravating or mitigating factors based on Cameron's personal circumstances, such as his rehabilitation efforts and positive personal developments, leading to a discount of 18 months. The court also granted an 11-month discount for Cameron's guilty plea, which was entered two weeks before the scheduled trial. After considering the totality of the offending and the submissions of the parties, the court sentenced Cameron to five years and seven months' imprisonment for each charge, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that Cameron be sentenced to five years and seven months' imprisonment for each of the four charges, to be served concurrently, and that all other charges be withdrawn.

Orders