Kamal v The Queen

The appellant, Kamal, appealed against the sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria, contending that the trial judge erred in characterising the offending as 'amoral' and excessively focusing on the moral character of the offending. The offending involved persistent demands by the appellant for payment from the parents of a dying child to return a telephone containing images of the child. The appellant threatened to erase the images or sell the telephone, although it was never in her possession. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the appeal and the application for an extension of time. The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether the trial judge made a specific error in characterising the offending as 'amoral' or by excessively focusing on the moral character of the offending. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no specific error in the trial judge's characterisation of the offending. The court held that the sentence, although stern, was within the available range. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and found no basis to support the appellant's contention that the trial judge had made a specific error in characterising the offending. The Court of Appeal considered relevant authorities such as Aitkin v The Queen, Director of Public Prosecutions v Oksuz, and Loftus v The Queen. The court found that the proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success, and the application for an extension of time was refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the application for an extension of time. The court held that the trial judge did not make a specific error in characterising the offending or by excessively focusing on the moral character of the offending. The sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years was within the available range and was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was refused.