Hamilton v The Queen

[2001] FCA 44

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hamilton v The Queen [2001] FCA 44

SANDRA LOUISE HAMILTON v THE QUEEN

A 55 OF 2000

HIGGINS, DRUMMOND & DOWSETT JJ
6 FEBRUARY 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 55 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	SANDRA LOUISE HAMILTON APPELLANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HIGGINS, DRUMMOND & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 55 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	SANDRA LOUISE HAMILTON APPELLANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HIGGINS, DRUMMOND & DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. The applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on one count of arson and one count of common assault.  She was sentenced, on the count of arson, to imprisonment for a period of four years and on the assault count, to a concurrent period of imprisonment for one month.  The non-parole period was fixed at two years, the sentences and non-parole period to date from 11 April 2000.  The applicant did not appeal within the time prescribed but has sought an extension of time in which to appeal against sentence.  The Crown does not oppose that application.  Accordingly, the time for appeal should be extended until 5 February 2001.  The draft notice of appeal should be treated as the notice of appeal for the purposes of these proceedings.  We will hereafter refer to the applicant as the appellant.  Obviously, the appeal relates only to the arson count.

2. The appellant was born on 27 July 1964.  She has suggested that she is of Aboriginal descent, but that appears to be a matter of dispute.  It is not of great significance for present purposes.  Her upbringing and family life were deprived.  Her father was an alcoholic and often committed acts of violence upon her mother.  Her parents separated when she was sixteen.  The appellant was first married at age nineteen and had four children from that marriage.  They were all taken into care in 1989.  The eldest child is now fifteen years of age.  She has a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, although she now claims to be committed to abstaining from alcohol and illicit drugs.  The appellant has undergone psychological assessment.  She is described as having difficulties in accepting authority, low frustration tolerance and poor conflict management skills.  She is of border-line intellectual functioning, which deficit is likely to have been compounded by her reported history of substance abuse. 

3. She has an extensive criminal history, involving offences of dishonesty, drug-related offences and offences related to the administration of…