THE QUEEN v JACQUELINE JOY CAMERON [1999] NZCA 280 (25 November 1999)

IN THE court of appeal of new zealand

ca319/99

THE QUEEN

V

JACQUELINE JOY CAMERON

Hearing:	25 November 1999
Coram:	Elias CJ Gault J Goddard J
Appearances:	J W Clearwater for Appellant A R Burns for Crown
Judgment:	25 November 1999

judgment of the court DELIVERED BY GAULT J

[1] The appellant was sentenced in the High Court at Auckland to imprisonment for six years.She had pleaded guilty to three charges of importing the Class A controlled drug LSD.

[2] According to the statement of facts the appellant provided to an acquaintance an address she knew could be used for mail delivery.She uplifted two parcels delivered to that address.A third parcel was sent to her home address.She knew the intention was to import LSD.Two of the parcels were intercepted by Customs officials who arranged for controlled delivery in circumstances leading to the apprehension of both the appellant and her friend at her home.

[3] The appellant said she became involved to obtain money to buy pottery kilns.She said, and the Judge accepted, that she thought each of two parcels contained smaller quantities (1000-2000 trips).She said she did not know a third parcel was to be sent to her home address but that is to be considered against the guilty plea.

[4] In fact the quantities were very large.The first parcel which was not intercepted contained an unknown quantity.The second and third together contained 23,975 trips which exceeded total seizures by the authorities in the preceding year.Estimated street value was between $600,000 and $950,000.

[5] The appellant is now 47 years old, a first offender with a good deal to commend in her background.She was accepted to have played a minor role in the offending by the Judge being simply a tool used by the principal offender.The guilty pleas were entered on arraignment on the morning of the trial after a challenge to the admissibility of an inculpatory statement and an appeal had been unsuccessful.

[6] On sentencing the Judge said:

Had you been one of the main instigators of this importation, because of its size and so on I would have imposed a sentence of somewhere between 12 and 14 years, certainly a minimum of 12.You are not such a person and I think your activity in it involves me looking at a sentence somewhere in the vicinity of 8 years.I give you a discount for your plea of guilty and also for the matter to which I have referred.Your counsel has suggested a sentence of up to 5 years would be the maximum.I think, in the circumstances, the least sentence I can imposed upon you at the moment of one of 6 years imprisonment.

[7] Counsel does not contend that the sentence imposed was excessive or inappropriate - nor could be.The only issue on appeal is whether some further reduction should be made because of the assistance given by the appellant by giving evidence at the trial of her co-accused.The sentencing Judge took no account of what then was the prospect of assistance.He said:

But in imposing any sentence, the Court takes into account the attitude of the prisoner and I have originally understood you were prepared when you pleaded guilty to co-operate with the Police, give them a full statement as to the involvement of the co-offender and you were prepared to give evidence against your co-offender when this matter came to trial.From what I have heard today I find myself not really in a position to attach a great deal of weight to what you said about helping the Police and giving evidence.It may well be you will give evidence and it may well be you will in effect tell the jury what you told the Police Officer, whether they accept it of course will be a matter for them, so the best that I can do for you is simply to say that I am sentencing you today on the basis of the other matters that I have referred to, namely the seriousness of importing LSD, the fact you pleaded guilty, the fact you have brought up youngsters and have led a pretty well blameless life, but your attitude as displayed by your non co-operation counts against you.And in the event of me being proved wrong it is a matter your counsel can take up with the Court of Appeal and no doubt they would then be able to regard your sentence perhaps rather differently than myself.

[8] We have been told that since then the appellant has co-operated and gave evidence at the co-accused's trial.He was acquitted.

[9] It is well established that meaningful reductions in sentences may be given for assistance to the authorities in the detection and conviction of other offenders.This may apply even when that assistance is given after the initial sentence is imposed:R v Accused (CA293/92) (1993) 10 CRNZ 397, 402, Crime Appeal CA224/91, judgment 20 September 1991, particularly where suppliers are identified or offending is disclosed that would otherwise not have been detected and where there is risk or danger to the person and those close to him or her.

[10] In the present case Mr Burns for the Crown contended that some further reduction would be appropriate - it seems primarily because communications between the Crown Solicitor's office and the appellant's solicitor were capable of interpretation as holding out support for a lesser sentence.Of course, it is not for the Crown to agree sentences nor to hold out or offer particular sentences in return for information or assistance.

[11] On the other hand the courts will receive information from the Police or Crown counsel about assistance received.To take it into account on sentencing provides an incentive for those with information to assist in the detection and prosecution of serious crime.Significant discounts are given in appropriate cases, but each case will depend on its own circumstances.

[12] It is necessary to weigh the assistance given with the type and seriousness of the offending, the sentence that otherwise would be appropriate, the nature and value of the assistance, the situations in which it is given and the consequences.In the end the sentence must be that which is appropriate in light of all of the circumstances including any assistance to the authorities.

[13] In the present case it is clear the Judge made no allowance for the assistance and the Crown acknowledges it was given.Therefore, the only reason for not allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence would be if the sentence already is at a level that is appropriate even allowing for the assistance.

[14] Certainly the sentence imposed by the Judge was a lenient one for such serious offending.Further, the basis on which he proceeded - that the appellant was a minor player - may have been generous given the subsequent acquittal of her co-accused whom she portrayed as the principal offender.Also the Judge appears to have taken a benevolent view of the late guilty plea entered in the face of almost inevitable conviction.

[15] It has been said repeatedly that, although not irrelevant, personal circumstances cannot carry much weight in mitigating sentences for serious drug offending where deterrence is important.

[16] As is clear from decisions of this Court in R v O'Donnell CA101/96 judgment 1 August 1996 and R v Stanaway [1997] 3 NZLR 129, sentences for importing Class A drugs in major quantities are imposed at high levels reflecting the insidious and dangerous nature of the trade.Here there were three separate imports.The number of LSD trips in the two that were seized represented stocks for serious commercial dealing.The level of sentences for offending on that scale rightly was put in the range of 12 to 14 years for principal offenders.The appellant may be accepted as a secondary party, but even disregarding the co-accused's acquittal, the role played by the appellant must be regarded as more than minor.Reception of imports is an essential role and that duty was knowingly undertaken by the appellant, and even in the quantities she believed to be involved, the offending was on a commercial scale.

[17] In the circumstances we consider a sentence of six years amply incorporates all reasonable allowances for the lesser role claimed by the appellant, the late plea, her personal circumstances and any assistance she gave to the authorities.Any further reduction is not warranted.

[18] There will be some sense of disappointment for the appellant who reasonably expected some reduction from her sentence in light of comments made by the sentencing Judge.But our responsibility is to interfere where the sentence is, in all the circumstances, inadequate or inappropriate and we have not been convinced that this is such a sentence.

[19] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors

Clearwater & Associates, Auckland, for Appellant

Crown Solicitor, Auckland