Kamna Ramjutton v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 309

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0004

KAMNA RAMJUTTON	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, REDLICH JA and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 November 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 309
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2014] VSC 611 (Emerton J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Manslaughter – Unlawful and dangerous act – Aiding and abetting – Sentenced to 8y 6m, non-parole period 6y – Complicity – Pre-planning – Victim lured to house and assaulted – Death by strangulation – Appellant encouraged principal offender by presence – Participated in pre-planning and luring victim to house – Whether judge mischaracterised role – Culpability – Acquiescence – Whether appellant less blameworthy – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – R v Lam (2008) 185 A Crim R applied.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Mitigating factors – Offer to plead guilty – Discussions between counsel – Whether unconditional indication of intention to plead guilty – Judge did not take into account – No error – Sentencing Act 1991 s 5(2)(e).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C T Carr	Matthew White and Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P B Kidd SC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
REDLICH JA
CROUCHER AJA:

Overview

The appellant and her husband were each charged with the murder of Faisal Zazai. Shortly prior to her trial, the appellant pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to one charge of manslaughter, on the basis that she aided and abetted her husband’s unlawful and dangerous act. Following the trial, her husband was convicted of murder. The appellant was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years.

On 20 March 2015, the appellant was granted leave to appeal on the following grounds:[1]

1The learned sentencing judge erred in finding that it did not reduce the appellant’s culpability that she was not the driving force behind the unfolding events and her role could best be described as acquiescence.
2The sentencing process miscarried because the learned sentencing judge sentenced on a factual basis different to the agreed basis upon which the plea proceeded, without any forewarning that she would do so.
3The learned sentencing judge erred in sentencing on the basis that the appellant’s offending was extremely serious because she was ‘involved in planning some kind of serious assault’ on the victim.
4The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.

[1]Ramjutton v The Queen (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, Redlich JA, 20 March 2015).

For the reasons that follow, we would dismiss the appeal.

Background
Circumstances of the offending

The circumstances of the offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening, exhibited on the plea.

The appellant and her husband were each born in Mauritius and arrived in Australia in 2006. The appellant was aged 25 at the time of the offending.

In 2007, the appellant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kamna Ramjutton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Kamna Ramjutton v The Queen [2015] VSCA 309
Case: [2015] VSCA 309
Decision Date: 23 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kamna Ramjutton appealed against her sentence for manslaughter, following a conviction for aiding and abetting the unlawful and dangerous act that resulted in the death of the victim. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant was found to have participated in pre-planning the crime, luring the victim to a house, and encouraging the principal offender by her presence. The trial judge sentenced her to eight years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The appeal centred on whether the judge mischaracterised the appellant's role in the crime, her level of culpability, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the nature of the appellant's involvement, including her presence at the planning stage and her role in luring the victim. The appellant argued that she was less blameworthy than the principal offender, but the court found that her participation in pre-planning and encouraging the principal offender demonstrated a high level of complicity. The court held that the judge did not mischaracterise the appellant's role and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also noted that the appellant did not unequivocally indicate her intention to plead guilty, and thus, the judge was not required to consider any potential mitigation arising from such a plea.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the trial judge properly considered the appellant's culpability and the nature of her involvement in the crime. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders