GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
)AG 10 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY)
)
GENERAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGES:HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA
DATE:6 JULY 1998
MINUTES OF ORDER
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.
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
)AG 10 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY)
)
GENERAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGES:HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA
DATE:6 JULY 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIGGINS J:
1.This is an appeal against a sentence or, strictly speaking, sentences, imposed by Gallop J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.Without rehearsing each and every one of the sentences imposed, the sentences aggregated eight years as a head sentence and a non-parole period of four years was fixed.Those sentences date from December of last year.The attack on the sentences imposed did not reveal any error of principle which his Honour had made in arriving at those sentences nor does it seem to me that on examining the authorities and after listening to the submissions of counsel that the sentences imposed are so far out of the norm as to themselves bespeak error. 2.In particular, whilst there were, of course, compelling personal circumstances which the appellant could call in aid there was, as his Honour noted, a lack of contrition, there was a lack of explanation as to where the moneys which had been defrauded from the tax payer had gone, a lack of significant reparation.In cases where there has been a lower non-parole period imposed it does appear that the personal circumstances of those offenders was regarded as appropriately relevant to do that. Just to take the case of McDonald, for example, there was significant remorse, there were other sentences which had been imposed which formed part of the same general pattern of behaviour and even there the sentence was not greatly distinguishable from the present.I would dismiss the appeal.I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date:1998
Counsel for the Appellant:A. Doig
Solicitors for the Appellant:Deacons Graham James
Counsel for the Respondent:G. Lalor
Solicitors for the Respondent:Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing:6 July 1998
Date of judgment:6 July 1998
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
)AG 10 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY)
)
GENERAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGES:HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA
DATE:6 JULY 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HEEREY J:
1.I agree.The offences were indeed extremely serious involving, as they did, fraud of almost $1 million over a period of four years.It could not be suggested that in such circumstances a head sentence of eight years would be outside the range.That being so I cannot see how a non-parole period of half that amount could be said to be manifestly excessive.I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Heerey.
Associate:
Date:1998
Counsel for the Appellant:A. Doig
Solicitors for the Appellant:Deacons Graham James
Counsel for the Respondent:G. Lalor
Solicitors for the Respondent:Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing:6 July 1998
Date of judgment:6 July 1998
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
)AG 10 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY)
)
GENERAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOHN KIBUKAMUSOKE
Appellant
AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent
JUDGES:HIGGINS, HEEREY AND COOPER JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA
DATE:6 JULY 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COOPER J:
1.I agree.I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Cooper.
Associate:
Date:1998
- AGLC
- Kibukamusoke, John v The Queen [1998] FCA 859
- Case
- [1998] FCA 859
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence, the propriety of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The appellant argued that the evidence was obtained in breach of his rights, that the trial judge misdirected the jury, and that the sentences were excessive. The Crown, represented by the respondent, The Queen, contended that the trial was conducted fairly and lawfully, and that the sentences were within the bounds of proportionality and justice.
The High Court examined the evidence presented and found that there were no procedural errors that warranted a departure from the trial judge's findings. The court held that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct. The court further determined that the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions and sentences were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.