RAMANAH -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 112
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 112 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:92/2005 | 13 JUNE 2006 | |
| Coram: | MARTIN CJ WHEELER JA ROBERTS-SMITH JA | 13/06/06 | |
| 10 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : RAMANAH -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 112 CORAM : MARTIN CJ
- WHEELER JA
ROBERTS-SMITH JA
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : WISBEY DCJ
File No : IND 476 of 2005
Catchwords:
Appeal - Criminal law - Sentence - Fraud upon Commonwealth - Unauthorised and false income tax returns - Sentence not excessive
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr S W O'Sullivan
Respondent : Mr H G Dembo
Solicitors:
Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
Continue reading Ramanah v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Ramanah v The Queen [2006] WASCA 112
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ramanah v The Queen concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed for multiple counts of fraud against the Commonwealth and filing false income tax returns. The appellant, Mr Ramanah, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria for engaging in a fraudulent scheme to obtain goods and services from the Commonwealth without payment. He was also found guilty of filing false income tax returns. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and assessed whether the sentence was excessive.
The central legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances. The Court considered the appellant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offences, and the culpability of the appellant. The Court also examined whether the sentence was disproportionate when compared to sentences imposed in similar cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the sentence was not excessive. The Court found that the appellant's criminal history was extensive, and the offences were serious, involving significant fraud against the Commonwealth. The Court considered the appellant's culpability and the need for general deterrence. The Court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the appellant's culpability. The Court of Appeal also noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold the rule of law.
No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.
The central legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances. The Court considered the appellant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offences, and the culpability of the appellant. The Court also examined whether the sentence was disproportionate when compared to sentences imposed in similar cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the sentence was not excessive. The Court found that the appellant's criminal history was extensive, and the offences were serious, involving significant fraud against the Commonwealth. The Court considered the appellant's culpability and the need for general deterrence. The Court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the appellant's culpability. The Court of Appeal also noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold the rule of law.
No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.