AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
4
Supreme Court 22 September 2016

R v Cameron; R v Forward; R v Wilkinson

[2016] NSWSC 1342

HomicideDrugsPublic order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE MURDER PREMEDITATED COMMITTED IN COMPANY KNIFE ATTACK

Citation: R v Cameron; R v Forward; R v Wilkinson [2016] NSWSC 1342
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 September 2016
Judge(s): Fagan J

Background

Three men appeared before the Supreme Court for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges arising from the murder of Jacob Munro on 22 July 2014 at Schofields, NSW. Donald Cameron (aged 62 at the time) and Stanley Forward (aged 21) pleaded guilty to murder. David Wilkinson (aged 67) pleaded guilty as an accessory after the fact to that murder. All three also pleaded guilty to knowingly taking part in the large commercial cultivation of 664 cannabis plants at the same Schofields property.

The murder grew out of a hydroponic cannabis growing operation that Cameron and a co-associate, Phillip Holder, had established in a large shed on a leased property. Forward and Wilkinson were among the workers employed at the site. The victim, Jacob Munro, was another worker introduced by Holder. Ongoing violent friction between Munro and another worker, and Cameron's fear that Munro would expose the operation to police or robbers, led Cameron and Forward to plan and carry out Munro's killing.

Wilkinson was aware of discussions about killing Munro but, the court found, did not genuinely believe the plan would be carried out. His role as accessory arose from assistance he provided to Cameron and Forward after the murder was committed.

  • Whether a life sentence was warranted for Cameron and Forward, or whether a finite term was appropriate under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • The appropriate sentence for each offender on the murder charge, having regard to the standard non-parole period of 20 years and the individual circumstances of Cameron and Forward
  • The appropriate sentence for Wilkinson as an accessory after the fact to murder, where no statutory standard non-parole period applies
  • The relative culpability of all three offenders across both the murder and the cannabis cultivation charges
  • The appropriate sentencing discounts for each offender's guilty plea and any other mitigating factors

Decision

Fagan J determined that, while the murder was grave, premeditated, committed in company, and carried out to conceal a criminal enterprise, a finite term rather than life imprisonment was appropriate for both Cameron and Forward. The killing involved a knife attack, the use of a taser, and the subsequent disposal of the body, all pointing to serious objective criminality. The court found Cameron to be the dominant figure in the operation, whose fear that Munro would compromise the drug enterprise drove the planning of the murder.

The court could not resolve the conflicting accounts of Cameron and Forward as to who first proposed killing Munro, since neither gave evidence at the sentencing proceedings. However, the court found this distinction did not materially affect the assessment of their respective culpabilities. Both men received significant custodial sentences that reflected the standard non-parole period for murder, discounted for their guilty pleas.

Wilkinson's position was treated as meaningfully different. The court accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not believe the murder would actually occur, and that his criminal liability arose from his conduct as an accessory after the fact rather than as a participant in the killing. His sentences for both the accessory charge and the cannabis cultivation charge were accordingly lower, and the court applied a 35% discount across both counts, reflecting his guilty pleas and other relevant mitigating matters.

On the cannabis cultivation charge, the court assessed the relative roles of all three offenders. Cameron was identified as the most culpable, having initiated and directed the enterprise. Forward and Wilkinson occupied subordinate, employed roles. Sentencing for the cultivation offence was structured to reflect those differences.

Orders Made

Donald Cameron:
- Sentenced to imprisonment for murder (specific term not preserved in the provided text excerpt)
- Sentenced to imprisonment for cannabis cultivation (specific term not preserved in the provided text excerpt)

Stanley Forward:
- Sentenced to imprisonment for murder (specific term not preserved in the provided text excerpt)
- Sentenced to imprisonment for cannabis cultivation (specific term not preserved in the provided text excerpt)

David Wilkinson:
- Cannabis cultivation: non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months commencing 25 February 2015, expiring 24 December 2016; balance of term of 7 months expiring 24 July 2017
- Accessory after the fact to murder: non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months commencing 25 November 2015, expiring 24 January 2017; balance of term of 4 months expiring 24 May 2017
- Wilkinson to be released on parole at expiry of the non-parole period for the accessory to murder sentence
- No parole release order made at expiry of the cultivation non-parole period, as Wilkinson would still be serving the accessory to murder non-parole period at that time
- All three offenders notified under s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the Act applies to them

Key Takeaways

  • A premeditated murder committed in company, to conceal a drug cultivation enterprise, and accompanied by the use of weapons and body disposal, attracts very serious sentencing consideration, though the Supreme Court here declined to impose life imprisonment and fixed finite terms instead.
  • Where co-offenders give conflicting accounts of who initiated a murder plan and neither testifies at sentence, the court may find it is unable to resolve the conflict but can nonetheless conclude that the distinction does not materially alter the respective culpability assessments.
  • Accessory after the fact to murder carries a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment in NSW with no statutory standard non-parole period; sentencing in such cases requires the court to construct an appropriate starting point by reference to the offender's actual role and knowledge.
  • A significant sentencing discount applied where Wilkinson's pleas of guilty, taken together with other mitigating matters, justified a 35% reduction across both offences, reflecting the utilitarian and other recognised value of early guilty pleas.
  • Under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), offenders sentenced for murder and serious drug offences may be formally notified at the time of sentencing that the Act's provisions apply to them.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), including s 349(1) (accessory after the fact)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including ss 21(1), 33, 50, 61(1) and Pt 4 Div 1A
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 23(2)(a), 33(1) and 33(3)(b)(i)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C(1)

Cases:
- Licastro v R [2008] NSWCCA 131
- R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
- R v Hawken (1986) 27 A Crim R 32
- R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205