R v Campbell - [2007] NZCA 121

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA243/06
[2007] NZCA 121
THE QUEEN
v
JASON WHETU CAMPBELL
Hearing:6 March 2007

Court:Ellen France, John Hansen and Williams JJ
Counsel:J H M Eaton for Appellant

D La Hood for Crown

Judgment:4 April 2007 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A THE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION IS DISMISSED.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Williams J)

ISSUES
[1]        Following trial in the Christchurch District Court commencing on 15 May 2006 the appellant, Mr Campbell, and his co-accused, a Mr McCausland, were both convicted on one count of aggravated robbery of the Lodge Tavern in Christchurch on 16 February 2005. They had originally been charged jointly with a Ms Spooner and a Mr Telfar but they pleaded guilty and Ms Spooner gave Crown evidence at trial.
[2]        On 6 June 2006 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years with a minimum period of five years.
[3]        Mr Campbell appeals to this Court against his conviction on the basis of the way in which Mr McCausland’s Police statement was dealt with at trial.
[4]        He also appeals against the sentence imposed, asserting it was manifestly excessive by comparison with those imposed on his co-accused.
Facts
[5]        Late in the evening on Wednesday, 16 February 2005, an intruder, whom the Crown said was the appellant, armed with a .22 rifle gained entry to the Lodge Tavern, pointed the rifle at the manager who was cashing up and demanded he hand over the bar takings. The tavern had a number of gaming machines which were usually emptied on Wednesday evenings and the intruder also required the manager to empty those machines and hand over the takings. Not all were emptied before the intruder ordered the manager to desist. In the tavern’s office the intruder ordered the manager at gunpoint to lie face down on the floor, bound him with insulation tape and threatened to shoot him in the event of pursuit.
[6]        Shortly afterwards, the two former co-accused entered the tavern. They took further cash. All then left in a vehicle.
[7]        Some $31,588.34 in total was taken in the robbery. Little was recovered.
[8]        Ms Spooner had worked at the tavern for about six months before the robbery and become familiar with the manager’s cash-handling habits, including his emptying of the gaming machines after business closed on Wednesday evenings. Evidence at trial was that Mr Telfar and she had planned the robbery some days before it occurred.
[9]        Much of the evidence against the appellant at trial was circumstantial. Some examples are discussed in the following paragraphs.
[10]     Ms Spooner and Mr Telfar were at the appellant’s address on the evening in question with Mr McCausland. Evidence at trial was that the four left the premises in a borrowed vehicle and returned the vehicle to its owner late that evening. Fingerprints discovered on the vehicle included those of the appellant, although an exculpatory explanation for their…

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 [2007] NZCA 121
Case: [2007] NZCA 121
Decision Date: 4 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Jason Whētu Campbell against his conviction and sentence arose from his involvement in the armed robbery of the Lodge Tavern in Christchurch on 16 February 2005. Campbell and his co-accused, Mr McCausland, were convicted on one count of aggravated robbery. Campbell's appeal against his conviction was based on the handling of Mr McCausland's police statement during the trial, particularly its admissibility and impact on the jury. Additionally, Campbell appealed against the nine-year sentence imposed, claiming it was manifestly excessive compared to the sentences of his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial proceedings to determine if the handling of Mr McCausland's statement constituted a miscarriage of justice or misdirection to the jury. The trial judge had provided adequate directions regarding the inadmissibility of Mr McCausland's statement against Campbell. Although the judge did not provide a specific direction when the statement was first introduced, he repeatedly emphasized the inadmissibility of the statement during his summing-up. The Court found that the directions were sufficient and that the jury could reasonably disregard the inadmissible evidence in considering Campbell's guilt. The Court also noted that there was ample other evidence to support Campbell's conviction.

Regarding the sentence, the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach. The sentence of nine years with a minimum period of five years was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the crime, the appellant's history of violent offenses, and the judge's consideration of the sentences imposed on the co-accused. The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to dismiss both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, affirming the original judgment of the Christchurch District Court.

Orders