Semaan v The Queen

The appeal in Semaan v The Queen involved a conviction for murder and the subsequent sentence imposed. The appellant, Semaan, was convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed both the conviction and the sentence. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the Crown also appealing the sentence as being manifestly inadequate. The primary issues before the court were the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence, the adequacy of the warning given to the jury regarding the reliability of a witness, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The court found that the statements made by the appellant to the police on the night of the offence were admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court concluded that the hearsay exception in section 59 of the Act applied, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. Regarding the reliability warning, the court held that the warning provided to the jury was sufficient under section 62 of the Act, and there was no error in the trial judge's approach. Consequently, the conviction was upheld.

In relation to the sentence, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown that the original sentence of 22 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years was manifestly inadequate. The court considered the cold-blooded nature of the killing and the appellant's lack of remorse. The court also found that the appellant's post-offence conduct, including attempts to pervert the course of justice, constituted an aggravating factor. Following the principles outlined in R v De Simoni, R v Newman and Turnbull, and DPP v England, the sentence was increased to 28 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 years. Leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.