[1] Raven Casey Campbell: you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty in the District Court to one charge of indecent assault.1 Because you have previously received stage-one and stage-two warnings under the “three-strikes” law, this has become a stage-three offence and you are liable to be sentenced to the maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment and to serve it without parole.2 That is why this case was transferred to this Court for sentencing.

Factual background

[2] Your criminal history is important to the decision I must make about the sentence to be imposed.

[3] In March 2013, you were convicted of receiving stolen property (committed in October 2011) and possessing a knife in a public place (in April 2012). At that time, you were also convicted of robbery and demanding to steal, offences committed in September and October 2012. You were between 20 and 21 years old at the time of that offending. On the more serious charges you received concurrent sentences of fourteen months’ intensive supervision and four months’ community
detention, and you were given a stage-one warning on the robbery charge.3

[4] On 7 April 2014, you were convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment. That offence was committed only five months after the earlier sentences were imposed. You were given a stage-two warning.4 The terms of that warning informed you what the consequences would be if you were convicted of a later qualifying offence. It has not been suggested to me that you did not understand it or were not capable of understanding it, but I have no doubt that it was not in your mind when you committed this impulsive and foolish offence.

[5] The current offending occurred on 17 May 2016, while you were serving your sentence of imprisonment at Waikeria Prison. A female Corrections officer was

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 135.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 86D(2) and (3).
3      Section 86B.
4      Section 86C.

standing in a doorway supervising prisoners in the kit locker, where prisoners exchange their clothing, towels and bedding for fresh items. Standing behind the Corrections officer, you grabbed her right buttock, squeezed it quite hard, and held on for about 1 to 2 seconds.

[6] You were told to go to the guard room but you did not make any attempt to move. When the Corrections officer went to leave the yard through a set of steel gates, you followed her, grabbed the gate, and asked the Corrections officer if you could talk to her. You were told to move your hand so the Corrections officer could leave and you did so. The Corrections officer was not injured but she suffered stress…

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 Campbell

Details

AGLC: R v Campbell [2016] NZHC 2817
Case: [2016] NZHC 2817
Decision Date: 24 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Toogood presided over the case of The Queen versus Raven Casey Campbell, which dealt with a charge of indecent assault. The defendant had previously received stage-one and stage-two warnings under the "three-strikes" law, leading to the current offence being classified as a stage-three offence. As a result, the defendant was liable to a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment without parole. The case was transferred to the High Court for sentencing due to the severity of the potential punishment.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the mandatory seven-year imprisonment without parole sentence was appropriate, considering the nature of the offence and the defendant's background. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the indecent assault, the defendant's criminal history, and the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration against the statutory requirements of the "three-strikes" law.

Justice Toogood considered the defendant's limited support in the community, his history of offending, and his remorse and rehabilitation prospects. While acknowledging that the indecent assault was distressing for the victim, the court determined that the mandatory seven-year imprisonment without parole would be grossly disproportionate. The judge decided that after serving one-third of the sentence, the Parole Board would determine if and when it was safe to release the defendant into the community. Consequently, the court sentenced the defendant to seven years' imprisonment but did not order that he serve the entire sentence without parole.

The court's final order was that Raven Casey Campbell be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for the charge of indecent assault, but without the requirement to serve the entire sentence without parole. The defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society were encouraged, with the Parole Board to determine his release from prison.

Orders