The Queen v Cameron [2009] NZCA 410 (16 September 2009)

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

The Queen v Cameron [2009] NZCA 410 (16 September 2009)

Last Updated: 22 September 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA378/2009

[2009] NZCA 410

THE QUEEN

v

JOCELYN MARGARET CAMERON

Hearing: 9 September 2009

Court: Chambers, Rodney Hansen and Fogarty JJ

Counsel: A S Greig for Appellant
B D Tantrum for Crown

Judgment: 16 September 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Rodney Hansen J)

Introduction

[1] Ms Cameron pleaded guilty in the Christchurch District Court to five counts of receiving, two counts of interfering with a motor vehicle and six counts of theft. She was sentenced by Judge Callaghan to two years and four months imprisonment on each receiving count and concurrent terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts. The short point raised on her behalf is that the Judge failed to make allowance for a curfew to which she was subject while on bail.

Background

[2] From 1 January 2008 to 15 April 2008, Ms Cameron was involved in a criminal enterprise known as “car ringing” in which stolen motor vehicles are merged with wrecks and returned to the road. She was also involved in the theft of parts and accessories from motor vehicles. When search warrants were executed at her property, a large number of stolen vehicles and parts were located.
[3] From the time of her arrest on 15 April 2008 until she was sentenced on 29 May 2009, she was on bail, a condition of which was that she observe a curfew from 7.00 p.m. each evening until 7.00 a.m. on the following morning. She did not apply to relax the curfew after the police indicated that any such application would be opposed.

Sentence

[4] Judge Callaghan adopted a starting point of three years as appropriate to the totality of the offending. There were no aggravating factors of the offending and, although Ms Cameron had previous convictions, the Judge found they did not warrant any increase in the starting point.
[5] The pleas of guilty came after depositions. In terms of R v Walker [2009] NZCA 56, they would have entitled Ms Cameron to a discount of 10%. The Judge increased the discount to 20% to recognise the saving of trial time and, in settling on a final sentence of two years four months, also took into account the fact that Ms Cameron had not previously been imprisoned and had some health issues.

Appeal

[6] In support of his submission that the Judge should have made some further allowance for the time Ms Cameron spent subject to a curfew, Mr Greig refers to R v Iosefa [2008] NZCA 453, where this Court reduced a sentence of home detention by two months because the appellant had been on bail (pending appeal against sentence) for ten weeks with a 24-hour curfew. Mr Greig acknowledges that a 24-hour curfew is significantly more restrictive than a 12-hour overnight curfew but submits, nevertheless, that it materially impeded Ms Cameron’s freedom of movement, affected her quality of life and limited her ability to earn an income.
[7] In a proper case, mitigating factors can include compliance with a restrictive bail regime: R v Faisandier CA185/00 12 October 2000 and for recent examples see R v Cristia [2008] NZCA 19 and R v Tamou [2008] NZCA 88. Judge Callaghan could not have been criticised if he had made some modest allowance on that account. However, it is another thing to say that the Judge erred in not taking Ms Cameron’s terms of bail into account. They were not so onerous as to require a further discount from a starting point which Mr Greig accepts is appropriate. The Judge made generous allowance for mitigating factors. The final sentence fairly reflects Ms Cameron’s culpability and relevant Sentencing Act 2002 principles.
[8] The appellant has failed to show any error in the Judge’s approach or that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Result

[9] The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington