R v Boimah

Case [2017] QCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Boimah [2017] QCA 50

PARTIES:

R
v
BOIMAH, Isaac
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 206 of 2016
SC No 405 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 11 July 2016

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2017

JUDGES:

Philippides and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where a parcel from China containing 997.4 grams of methamphetamine was sent to the applicant’s address – where the parcel was addressed to a ‘Cug Warwick’ at the applicant’s address – where the applicant was found to be in possession of a false passport in the name of ‘Guy Warwick’ and depicting his photograph – where customs officers intercepted the parcel and a man claiming to be ‘Guy Warwick’ called the courier company for an explanation for the delay – where the applicant, at a police interview, admitted to possessing the false passport to receive money on a friend’s behalf – where the applicant admitted that he had never used the false passport to receive money – where the applicant claimed that he used the name Guy Warwick as he was not sure what the parcel would contain – where the applicant denied contacting the courier company – where the applicant had nonetheless pleaded guilty to the offence of attempting to possess a controlled border drug and possession of a false travel document – where the applicant’s trial counsel explained the plea of guilty as being on the basis of a belief that the package contained a border controlled drug without actual knowledge of what was in the package – where a belief as to the quantity or type of the border controlled drug is not required under the Criminal Code (Cth) – where the applicant contended on appeal that what his counsel had submitted was inconsistent with his instructions and said that he had no knowledge about anything illegal being in the package – where the applicant had pleaded guilty in an exercise of free choice upon the factual premises explained by his trial counsel – whether the applicant had established that a miscarriage of justice had occurred

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant’s co-accused was convicted of the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, whereas the applicant was sentenced for attempted possession of a border controlled drug – where the applicant received a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years – where the co-accused was originally sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment but this was…

Continue reading R v Boimah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Boimah [2017] QCA 50
Case
[2017] QCA 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Boimah, the respondent was convicted in the County Court of Victoria for attempting to possess a controlled border drug and possessing a false travel document. The case reached the Court of Appeal where the respondent sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The respondent contended that his trial counsel’s explanation of the basis for his guilty plea was inconsistent with his instructions, and he claimed to have had no knowledge of the contents of the parcel. Additionally, the respondent argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive and did not accord with the principle of parity, given that his co-offender received a higher sentence.

The court examined whether the respondent had established that a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the alleged inconsistency in the explanation of his guilty plea. The court found that the respondent had pleaded guilty freely and upon the factual premises explained by his trial counsel. The court held that the respondent's instructions did not negate the plea of guilty as he had not contested the factual premises provided by his trial counsel at the time of the plea. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent’s sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principle of parity in sentencing. The court held that the respondent's role as an intermediary in the importation was more significant than that of a courier, justifying the disparity in sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed as the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity had been appropriately applied by the sentencing judge. The appeal was thus refused, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.