Legal Research
Cases
R v Kovacs

R v Kovacs

Case [2009] QCA 116 5 June 2009

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2009] QCA 116

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
MUIR JA
FRASER JA

CA No 378 of 2007
SC No 2 of 2007

THE QUEEN

MELITA KOVACS Appellant

BRISBANE

DATE 06/05/2009

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Well, should these be the orders: that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for the charge of arranging a marriage and the appeal be allowed, and then the second order is that in respect of the charge of arranging a marriage the applicant be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a direction that she be released after having served 254 days of that term upon her giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1,000.00, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years? We make those orders.

...

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: And then in respect of the bail application, order as per draft.

Details

AGLC: R v Kovacs [2009] QCA 116
Case: [2009] QCA 116
Decision Date: 06/05/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Brisbane heard an appeal against sentence by the appellant, Melita Kovacs, against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The appeal was brought by the appellant against the sentence imposed for the charge of arranging a marriage. The appellant was found guilty of this charge after she arranged a sham marriage for a woman in return for payment. The appeal was brought on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by de Jersey CJ, Muir JA and Fraser JA.

The appeal required the court to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and had concluded that the sentence was appropriate. The court considered the nature of the offence, the appellant’s role in the offence and the appellant’s previous good character. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. In its place, the court allowed an appeal against sentence and ordered that the appellant be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a direction that she be released after having served 254 days of that term upon her giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1,000.00, conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years. The court also ordered that the appellant be granted bail pending the appeal.

Orders