Rama v The Queen

Case [2006] ACTCA 25

FATOS RAMA v REGINA [2006] ACTCA 25 (11 DECEMBER 2006)

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – multiple offences – damaging property with a view to gain – cultivating a prohibited plant – possessing a traffickable quantity of cannabis for the purpose of sale or supply – sentences to be imposed in relation to each offence –elements common to offences – partial cumulation of sentences – totality principle.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 116(2), s 354, s 434B
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 71
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 162, s 165

Putland v R (2004) 218 CLR 174
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 205 ALR 346
R v Marash Rrethi (Supreme Court of the ACT, SCC 171 of 2004
R v Downie and Dandy [1998] 2 VR 517
DPP v Duong [2006] VSCA 78 (30 March 2006) at [17] – [19] per Warren CJ

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA  18-2006
No. SCC 273 of 2004
No. SCC 218 of 2004

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Gray and Moore JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:  11 December 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 18-2006
  )  No. SCC 273 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )  No. SCC 218 of 2004
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:FATOS RAMA

Appellant

AND:REGINA

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Gray and Moore JJ
Date:  11 December 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal be allowed and sentences imposed to give effect to this judgment.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 18-2006
  )  No. SCC 273 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )  No. SCC 218 of 2004
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:FATOS RAMA

Appellant

AND:REGINA

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Gray and Moore JJ
Date:  11 December 2006
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The appellant, Fatos Rama, appeals against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in respect of a number of charges arising out of the cultivation of cannabis by hydroponic means in five different residential properties around Canberra.  The sentences, in aggregate, amounted to six years imprisonment.  They took effect from 22 March 2006.  A non-parole period of three years was set to date from 22 March 2007 and to expire on 21 March 2010.  That is, in effect, a non-parole period of four years.

  1. The charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty are those set out in an indictment dated 8 August 2005:

    The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, who prosecutes in this behalf for Her Majesty the Queen, INFORMS THE COURT AND CHARGES THAT between 4 September 2002 and 3 December 2003 at Canberra in the…

Continue reading Rama v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rama v The Queen [2006] ACTCA 25
Case
[2006] ACTCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rama appealed against sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria for multiple offences, including damaging property with a view to gain, cultivating a prohibited plant, and possessing a traffickable quantity of cannabis for the purpose of sale or supply. The appeal concerned the principles governing the imposition of sentences for multiple offences, particularly the application of partial cumulation and the totality principle.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge had erred in the approach taken to cumulating sentences for the various offences, and whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive when considering the totality of the offending conduct. Specifically, the court had to determine how to account for elements common to the offences when deciding whether sentences should be served concurrently, cumulatively, or partially cumulatively.

The Court of Appeal held that while it is permissible to impose partially cumulative sentences, the sentencing judge must clearly articulate the reasons for such an approach and ensure that the aggregate sentence reflects the totality of the offending. The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately explained the basis for imposing partially cumulative sentences, nor had the totality principle been sufficiently considered in light of the overlapping elements of the offences. The court emphasized that the purpose of sentencing is not merely to punish for each individual offence but to impose a just and proportionate sentence for the overall criminal conduct.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentences were varied to give effect to the court's judgment, ensuring a more appropriate application of sentencing principles in relation to multiple offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed and sentences imposed to give effect to this judgment.

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.