Tunja v The Queen

Tunja appealed his conviction for armed robbery and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the severity of the sentence.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the application of the *Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006* (Vic) in relation to the search of the appellant's phone and the principles governing the imposition of sentences for armed robbery.

The Court held that the search of the appellant's mobile phone was lawful, as it was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant. The judges reasoned that the *Charter* did not render the search unlawful, and that the evidence obtained was relevant and admissible. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence. The Court applied established principles of sentencing, including proportionality and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, with the Court upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge.