Ammula v The The Queen

Ammula was convicted of a drug-related offence and was sentenced to imprisonment. Ammula appealed against the severity of the sentence. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge erred by imposing a disqualification period longer than the minimum of three months. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether Ammula had a sufficient reason for not attending court when required to do so.

The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a disqualification period longer than the minimum of three months. It was held that the trial judge did indeed err in this respect. The appeal was considered in terms of the severity of the sentence and whether Ammula had a sufficient reason for not attending court when required to do so. The court determined that the appellant had not shown that he had a sufficient reason for not attending court. The appeal was dismissed, except for the disqualification period which was reduced to the minimum of three months. The sentence and conviction were otherwise upheld.