Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ

JOHN LEONARD CAMERON APPELLANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Cameron v The Queen

[2002] HCA 6

14 February 2002

P59/2001

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia of 3 October 2000 dismissing the appeal. 3. Remit the matter to that Court for further hearing and determination consistent with the reasons for judgment of this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Representation:

T F Percy QC with D J Davies for the appellant (instructed by D G Price & Co)

R E Cock QC with L Petrusa for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Australia))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Cameron v The Queen

Criminal Law – Sentence – Drug offence – Complaint wrongly particularised prohibited drug – Guilty plea entered as soon as complaint amended – Whether plea entered at first reasonable opportunity

Criminal Law – Sentence – Guilty plea as mitigating factor in sentencing – Whether guilty plea as mitigating factor in sentencing discriminatory.

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 7 and 8.

Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth), ss 3, 4, and 7.

1. GAUDRON, GUMMOW AND CALLINAN JJ. The appellant, John Leonard Cameron, was arrested at Perth airport on 22 April 1999 after a quantity of tablets was found in his hand luggage. In a police interview conducted shortly thereafter, the appellant denied any knowledge of the contents of his luggage. He was then charged that he "[h]ad in his possession a Prohibited Drug, namely 3, 4 Methylenedioxy-n, Alpha-Dimethylphenylethyl-Amine with Intent to Sell/Supply". The substance referred to in the charge is commonly known as "Ecstasy". 2. It appears that Perth airport, the location at which the appellant was said to have had the possession with which he was charged was a "Commonwealth place" within the meaning of the definition in s 3 of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth). The consequence was that s 4 of that statute rendered the laws of Western Australia applicable there in accordance with their tenor and s 7 invested the several courts of that State with federal jurisdiction in all matters arising under those applied provisions. The laws of Western Australia "picked up" in this way included the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA). The charge against the appellant, set out above, alleged contravention of s 6(1)(a) of the State law. 3. When charged, the appellant was remanded in custody. He subsequently appeared on a number of occasions before the Perth Court of Petty Sessions. On one appearance, on 2 July 1999, the appellant elected to have a preliminary hearing on 19 November 1999. Thereafter, he appeared on "cycle remand" on 30 July, 31 August, 30 September and 29 October 1999. Apparently, on a "cycle remand", the person concerned appears by video-link from prison. 4. Analysis of the substance found in the appellant's possession established that it contained Methylamphetamine, which is commonly known as "Speed", and not the substance charged. The analyst's certificates in that regard are dated 28 June 1999. On 10 November 1999, Legal Aid, which was then acting for the appellant, wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions indicating that the appellant wished "to enter a plea of guilty to the charge of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell and supply." The letter concluded with the observation "that the complaint as it's currently drafted is incorrect and should be amended to properly reflect the drug which was in Mr Cameron's possession." The complaint was accordingly amended on 17 November. The appellant then entered a plea of guilty and was committed to the District Court for sentence. 5. On 12 January 2000, the appellant was arraigned before the District Court where he maintained his guilty plea. It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that he should be sentenced on the basis that he pleaded at "the earliest possible opportunity" and that he should be credited "as if [it] were a fast-track plea of guilty". Prosecuting counsel did not put submissions in opposition to that course. 6. It will later be necessary to say something as to the "fast-track" plea of guilty. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that the practice in Western Australia in respect of such a plea is to substantially reduce the sentence that would otherwise be imposed, the reduction ranging "between 20–25 per cent up to 30–35 per cent depending upon the circumstances"[1]. The appellant's sentence was reduced for his plea of guilty by 10%, the sentencing judge, Blaxell DCJ, saying only that, ordinarily, the appellant "could have expected a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment but in view of the fact that [he had] pleaded guilty [it would be reduced] to 9 years' imprisonment." 7. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The only ground argued was that insufficient credit was given for the early plea of guilty. It was submitted on the appellant's behalf that, in the circumstances, the sentence should have been reduced "by at least 20 to 25 per cent". In that context, a question arose as to when the appellant first knew of the contents of the analyst's certificates. That question was unresolved, the Court being informed only that the certificates were dated 28 June 1999. 8. Prosecuting counsel resisted the application for leave to appeal, arguing that "[t]he plea of guilty was entered at an early stage but not at the earliest point" and that, in all the circumstances, the sentencing judge "did not err in giving insufficient credit for the [appellant's] plea of guilty."