R v Campos [1999] NSWCCA 339

R v Campos [1999] NSWCCA 339

The sentencing judge erred by adopting a manifestly excessive starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and by setting a non-parole period at 70 percent of the head sentence, which was higher than appropriate given the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The proper approach was to adopt a lower starting point, make appropriate deductions for absence of remissions and assistance, and set the non-parole period at 60 percent, resulting in a head sentence of 5 years and a non-parole period of 3 years.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted; sentences imposed in District Court quashed and new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Offences' 'sentencing' 'possession of Prohibited Imports' 'possession of Proceeds of Crime' 'non Parole Period to Head Sentence Ratio']
['criminal Law'] ['commonwealth Offences' 'sentencing' 'possession of Prohibited Imports' 'possession of Proceeds of Crime' 'non Parole Period to Head Sentence Ratio']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the starting point of 14 years' imprisonment for possession of a trafficable quantity of heroin was manifestly excessive" "Whether the non-parole period set at 70% of the head sentence was appropriate given the applicant's circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by adopting a manifestly excessive starting point of 14 years' imprisonment and by setting a non-parole period at 70 percent of the head sentence, which was higher than appropriate given the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The proper approach was to adopt a lower starting point, make appropriate deductions for absence of remissions and assistance, and set the non-parole period at 60 percent, resulting in a head sentence of 5 years and a non-parole period of 3 years.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted; sentences imposed in District Court quashed and new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Sentences imposed by Judge Rummery on 12 November 1998 quashed.' "Applicant re-sentenced on the first count to five years' imprisonment commencing 26 June 1998, with a non-parole period of three years." "On the second count, applicant sentenced to 15 months'...