R v Amery - [1999] QCA 236

99.236

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA THOMAS JA DEMACK J

CA No 119 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

LEANNE MARIEE AMERYApplicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 18/06/99
180699 T11-12/JB M/T COA137/99

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 29 March this year to the offence of extortion between 19 and 23 October last year. She was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and she seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The applicant is 33 years of age, having been born on
20 March 1966. She has a minor and quite old criminal
history consisting of one offence of breaking and
entering with intent in 1984 and one of soliciting in
1990. She has not previously been in prison.

At the relevant time she was a prostitute and the offence arose out of her relationship as a prostitute with the complainant. The offence consisted of demanding $2,000 from the complainant, threatening to go to the police and claim that he was a paedophile if he did not pay. She also admitted to threatening to burn his sugar cane.

The complainant is a 60-year-old cane farmer. He met
the applicant in 1996 by answering her advertisement in
the Cairns Post. They maintained a regular relationship
over the next two years or so. The nature of that
relationship is a little unclear and, for the purposes
of this application, I do not think it matters. He said
that over that period he transferred to her account
about $60,000. This she admitted although she asserted,
180699 T11-12/JB M/T COA137/99
or it was asserted on her behalf, that this had taken
place over a longer period than two years.

Then on 20 October 1998 the applicant telephoned the complainant and demanded money which she said she needed for rent or a rental bond. He refused. They met and she again requested the money, then threatening to tell the police he was a paedophile and also to burn his cane. It was at this point that the complainant went to the police and they made arrangements for him to telephone the applicant and then meet her. The phone call and that meeting were observed and tape recorded. She made the demand again for $2,000 which the complainant then paid her. She was then apprehended.

The applicant persisted in her claim that the complainant was a paedophile telling his brother that and also telephoning his solicitor and saying that. She also told the police that.

No oral evidence was given on the sentence hearing.
However the learned sentencing Judge said in respect of
the applicant that he was particularly unimpressed with
her credibility; arriving at this conclusion by
reference to the transcript of the recorded interview
with the police which was of some considerable length
and based apparently on inconsistencies in answers which
she gave in that interview.
180699 T11-12/JB M/T COA137/99
This may have been of some relevance to the correctness
of the sentencing process if, in fact, his Honour
purported to make findings of…

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 R v Amery

Details

AGLC: R v Amery [1999] QCA 236
Case: [1999] QCA 236
Decision Date: 18/06/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Amery, the applicant, Leanne Mariee Amery, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Amery had pleaded guilty to the offence of extortion, which occurred between 19 and 23 October of the previous year. The District Court sentenced her to one year's imprisonment, and she now appeals against that sentence. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court's sentence was appropriate and whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the applicant's guilty plea and personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's crime was extremely serious, particularly given the threats made against the complainant, a 60-year-old man suffering from Parkinson's disease. The judges noted that the offence merited a term of imprisonment, and the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate. The Court found that the sentencing judge adequately took into account the applicant's guilty plea and personal circumstances, including her minor criminal history and the fact that she had not previously been in prison. The Court concluded that the applicant's appeal against sentence should be refused.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The judges agreed that the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence. The Court found that the applicant's crime was extremely serious, and that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

Orders