SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Vimahi v The Queen |
Citation: | [2018] ACTCA 18 |
Hearing Date: | 14 February 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 29 May 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Elkaim and Wigney JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge erred with respect to concurrency and accumulation – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 21 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 42, 180 and 249 |
Cases Cited: | CX v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 37 Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584 |
Parties: | Lihai Vimahi (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr P Bevan (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Bevan & Co Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 26 of 2017 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Walmsley AJ Date of Decision: 7 June 2017 Case Title: R v Vimahi; R v Grech (No 2) Citation: [2017] ACTSC 176 |
THE COURT:
The appeal:
This is an appeal by Mr Lihai Vimahi (the appellant) against sentences imposed by Walmsley AJ (the sentencing judge) on 7 June 2017.
The sentencing judge imposed the following sentences in respect of offences committed by the appellant:
(a)“Wounding” contrary to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act): three years’ imprisonment from 1 August 2015 to 31 July 2018 (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment) (the wounding offence).
(b)“Unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm” contrary to s 42 of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Firearms Act): four years’ imprisonment from 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2021 (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment) (the possession offence).
(c)“Failure to comply with storage requirements” contrary to s 180 of the Firearms Act: three months’ imprisonment from 1 July 2021 to 30 September 2021 (maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment) (the failure to safely store offence).
(d)Two counts of “unauthorised possession of ammunition” contrary to s 249 of the Firearms Act: $500 fine for each count (total fine of $1,000) and no time to pay (maximum 10 penalty units) (the possession of ammunition offences).
The total sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was six years and two months’ imprisonment from 1 August 2015 to 30 September 2021. The sentencing judge set a non-parole period of…
Continue reading Vimahi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Vimahi v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 18
- Case
- [2018] ACTCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the total sentence imposed was demonstrably too severe, and whether the sentencing judge had made an error in principle regarding the concurrency and accumulation of the sentences. These issues required the Court to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality, the impact of the offending on victims, and the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions of both parties. It was ultimately determined that the sentencing judge had not erred in principle or in fact, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the judge had properly taken into account all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence and the manner in which it should be served.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is 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.