District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Campbell [2021] NSWDC 742 Hearing dates: 11 November 2021 Date of orders: 11 November 2021 Decision date: 11 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: A term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of 12 months: [22]. Catchwords: SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Use of weapon SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Injury, harm, loss or damage not substantial — Plea of guilty — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — General principles — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Rhiannon Campbell (Offender) Representation: Ms M Hayes (Solicitor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr T Hughes (Counsel for the Offender) File Number(s): 2020/283507 Judgment 1. Rhiannon Campbell, who is almost 36, pleads guilty to one count of reckless wounding in company contrary to s 35(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of four years. The maximum penalty and standard non-parole period are both important legislative yardsticks in the sentencing process, as are the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which are also to be taken into account. 2. She pleaded guilty in circumstances justifying a 25% discount on the term of imprisonment and Mr Hughes of counsel for the offender acknowledges that a term of full‑time custody is required. As such iit is unnecessary to consider any alternatives. S 3. She has spent exactly one year in custody over two periods since her arrest on 30 September and it is common ground that a term of imprisonment should commence on 11 November 2020, that is one year ago today. 4. There are three co‑offenders who have not yet been sentenced, so no question of parity arises. 5. In short, the victim, Ramona Zafra moved to Goulburn around June 2017 and met the offender's uncle and co‑offender, Gary Campbell, who was 41 years old at the time. 6. In April or May 2020, Zafra began selling methamphetamine which she obtained from Gary Campbell and she used the profit to support her own drug habit. The victim met the offender in about June 2020 after being introduced by her uncle, Gary Campbell. 7. Mr Hughes correctly puts that the offence was preceded by what is fairly described as a drug debt owed by the victim to Gary Campbell. The offender had no part to play in that transaction or the ongoing discussions in relation to the repayments of the debt. 8. On 2 August 2020, the victim went back to her flat and she saw Rhiannon Campbell and Sharni North near a unit with another male and Jarrod Fitton upstairs. Over the course of discussions about a $7,000 debt. The victim agreed to go and meet Gary Campbell who was at home, subject to a bail curfew. 9. She travelled to another address in Goulburn with Rhiannon Campbell, North and Fitton. The victim stood in front of Gary Campbell andthey argued over the debt. 10. North approached the victim and stabbed her in left thigh with a yellow kitchen knife with an 8 cm blade. At that time Gary Campbell and Rhiannon Campbell were present in the room. She was bleeding from the wound to her leg. She refused an ambulance. 11. She later went to Goulburn Base Hospital where she received five sutures to the stab wound in her left thigh which was still bleeding. 12. She reported the matter on 11 August. Rhiannon Campbell was arrested on 30 September and, in an interview, told police she was not involved in the incident. 13. Her record is very limited; prior to this offence there was only offences of common assault and destroy/damage property, dealt with by bonds in 2005 and in May 2021 Whilst she was on bail for this offence in there was an offence of possess prohibited drug for which she was given a CRO for nine months without conviction. That offending led to her being returned to custody. 14. The sentence assessment report notes that she has pro‑social support from her father and siblings. She has been assessed as being at a medium risk of reoffending. Her full subjective case is outlined in a very comprehensive report of the psychologist, Sam Albassit which is not challenged by the Crown and is accepted as a reasonable basis for assessment of the subjective case. 15. In short, it describes her Aboriginality and deprived background, her drug addiction, her good character, mental illness, a lack of planning on the offence, her difficult year in custody, her genuine expressions of remorse, and her clear need for rehabilitation and the availability of appropriate treatment. She has, fortunately, a bed available to her on release at the Wayback Rehabilitation Centre at Harris Park where she will be subject to strict conditions and, as is well known with that very useful drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, residents must be strictly compliant with those conditions. 16. I accept that the role of the offender involves her being present in the room at the time of the stabbing, but playing no physical part in the wounding and not encouraging any activity. She was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time which leads to a conclusion, as put by the Crown, that the offending is just below the mid‑range of objective seriousness for this type of offending. 17. The aggravating factors to be taken into account are that, obviously, the use of a weapon was involved. 18. In terms of mitigating factors, the Crown acknowledges that the injury was not substantial. There was a plea of guilty and I accept her expressions of remorse. 19. I accept that her prospects of rehabilitation and that the likelihood of reoffending are favourable, if she adheres to the treatment plan propounded by the psychologist and complies with the Wayback environment. 20. I accept that a finding of special circumstances should be made, given the difficult period in custody, particularly during the COVID pandemic over the last year, her diagnosis of complex post‑traumatic stress disorder and substance dependence, and her need for intensive supervision in a residential rehabilitation while on parole. 21. There has, in my view quite properly. been an acknowledgement by the Crown that the following submission urged by Mr Hughes is appropriate, namely, that the time served in custody adequately serves the purposes of sentencing. 22. For those reasons, the orders I make are: 1. The offender is convicted of the offence 2. Taking into account the 25% discount for the plea of guilty, I impose a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, commencing 11 November 2020 and expiring 10 May 2022. 3. I impose a non‑parole period of 12 months, expiring 10 November 2021, and the offender is obviously eligible for release today. 4. I find special circumstances. Note – These extempore remarks were revised without access to the court file. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 February 2022