R v Jimson

[2009] QCA 183

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jimson [2009] QCA 183

PARTIES:

R
v
JIMSON, Ramia Binti
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2009
SC No 1012 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 June 2009

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Keane JA and Fraser JA
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 SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on her plea of guilty of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months – whether the sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to comparable decisions of courts in other states and failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s personal circumstances and the assistance she offered to authorities – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16(2)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 307.2(1)

R v Klein (2001) 121 A Crim R 90; [2001] NSWCCA 120, distinguished
R v Mokoena[2009] QCA 36, considered
R v Ngui and Tiong (2000) 1 VR 579; [2000] VSCA 78, distinguished
R v Thomas [1999] VSCA 204, distinguished
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, considered
R v Umenyi (unreported, Byrne J, SC No 237 of 2008, 18 March 2008), cited
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, cited

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo for the applicant
D N Adsett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA.  I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

1. KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Fraser JA.  I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by his Honour.

1. FRASER JA: On 13 March 2009 the applicant was convicted on her plea of guilty of an offence against s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug. She was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. A period of 375 days from 3 March 2008 to 13 March 2009 was declared to be time served under the sentence by way of pre-sentence custody.

1. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.  Her counsel argues that the sentence which should…