Sysel v Dinon

[2002] QCA 149

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA
MUIR J

CA No 75 of 2002

HANA SYSEL Appellant/Applicant

OFFICERS S DINON, BM WILKIE,
DJ EDMONDS and SERGEANT GT FLEMING Respondents/Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/04/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was heard by a Court consisting of Judges of Appeal, McPherson and Williams and Muir J.

The orders are:

(1)the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed;

(2)the application for leave to extend time to apply under section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 is granted;

(3)the application under section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences 1992 to reopen proceedings is refused.

I publish the separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hana Sysel, the appellant, brought an appeal against her sentence against the respondents, Officers S Dinon, BM Wilkie, DJ Edmonds, and Sergeant GT Fleming. The appeal was heard by a Court of Appeal consisting of Judges McPherson, Williams, and Muir. The appellant was convicted of several offences, including conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and obtaining financial benefits by deception. The respondents were police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of the appellant.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive or unjust. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offences committed and that the court had failed to take into account mitigating factors. The respondents argued that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not excessive or unjust. The Court noted that the offences committed by the appellant were serious and involved a significant degree of planning and deception. The Court also found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed. The Court further found that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a reduction in sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court granted the appellant's application to extend the time to apply under section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. However, the Court refused the appellant's application under section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to reopen proceedings. The Court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any new evidence or circumstances that would warrant a reopening of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established