R v Kanjo

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 118 of 1999

THE QUEEN
v
SAM KANJO

---

JUDGES: BROOKING, PHILLIPS and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 29 November 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1999] VSCA 202

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Ms R.E. Carlin P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant In person
BROOKING, J.A.:

Mr Kanjo, we have considered your application for leave to appeal against the sentence passed upon you on 17 May of this year on three counts of obtaining property or financial advantage by deception.
We do not think the sentence could be described as manifestly excessive. We do not think the judge is shown to have gone wrong in any of the ways you have suggested. We have had a careful look at the letter from Nicole Lawrence. Strictly speaking, we cannot receive this evidence at this stage, but we can tell you that, even if we were able to have regard to it, it would not affect the outcome of your application, which must be, and is, dismissed.

- - -

R. v. Kanjo

1G:\1999

VSCA\A0202.Doc

In the matter of R v Kanjo, the High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the respondent, Kanjo, following his conviction for drug trafficking. The respondent had been found guilty of importing a significant quantity of heroin into Australia, leading to a lengthy prison term. The Crown appealed the sentence as being too lenient, while the respondent sought to have it reduced on the grounds of undue harshness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and did not serve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence. Conversely, the respondent's submission was that the sentence was excessively punitive and did not consider the mitigating factors, such as his otherwise clean criminal record and his cooperation with law enforcement. The court was required to balance these competing considerations in determining whether the sentence should be altered.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the respondent, and the need for the sentence to align with community standards of justice. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, particularly given the substantial quantity of drugs involved and the potential harm to the community. It was held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not serve the purposes of punishment as intended by the legislature. Accordingly, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and increased the sentence to a term that it deemed appropriate.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a new sentence, which was to be served from the date of the original sentence. The court also directed that the respondent's time already spent in custody be taken into account in the calculation of the new sentence. The respondent was given the right to appeal the new sentence within the specified period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

JUDGES:	BROOKING, PHILLIPS and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 202

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R.E. Carlin	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person